I don't deny that "good" (people may have varying definitions of good, acceptable costs of obtaining sufficient good-ness, whether those costs are assumed to be burdened upon a individual or society unquestioningly, on whether such costs can be minimized and how such minimization might negatively affect those not directly integral to academic pursuits and more integral a current system of manifesting such at non minimized costs) peer review may weed these behaviors out more often than not (boasting over mediocre results, outright faking stuff, etc), but for me, I'm not too concerned because this stuff will happen no matter what to some degree (like you say `It doesn't get better wirh Arxiv`). We are only human.

I'm more interested in making the _costs_ of publishing/disseminating/accessing research cheaper so that individuals/orgs/etc can bypass expensive institutions if they so choose, or even gain the ability to participate because they have no other realistic options now due to current costs of participation in the ecosystem (I personally have to deal with thousands of journals/conferences/orgs every week that use software I write at significantly cheaper costs than say systems MIT has at its disposal, that without such, their works would not be available to society [i've see domains i route for go down when they stopped paying their bills for a month or longer, and we had to redirect publications/data back out from domain so that it could still be available]).

Any system that can drive down the costs for pursing academic interests for both the individual and society will eventually subvert those that came before, relegating them a hollow shell of the purpose they once served, if any aspect of a previous system manages to survive.