· By one side the Journal reclaim a high amount of money for being able TO TRY to publish on them (APCs fee), more if one want to be published for to allow free access, as to read the publication in such Journals require subscription, are pay walled.

· By other side, the reviewers of such papers, academics and researchers from other universities, don't receive economical compensation for doing the review, while the taken APCs fee its supposed for doing it? only in few cases the review is compensated by some programs of the reviewer's university or other 3rd parties. Then, what is for all those pay-walls and publish-fees?

Sounds like a big filter... for what? for who? Because can be seen it's not working just as a mere "quality" filter.

So as my outsider point of view (from time to time I have to use Sci-Hub in fact), I understand if they decide to don't publish in such popular Journals, and I consider absolutely legitimate when they do it in distribution channels like arXiv.

Being an paper published in one of those popular Journals, or being done directly in medias like arXiv, both sources needs the same amount of "grain of salt" about what is being read, until others replicate experiments, or contrast theories, or trust in the researcher meticulousness.

So, what I would really would like to be able to access is an open research platform without any kind of pay walled paper, like arXiv, and if reviews were done across the time, through such platform, being able to read them also. And in same way, equally important, to have access to debates about such paper at the button, like if it were hacker news format.