> Remarkably, we have arrived at a system where academics feel a moral obligation to perform the thankless task of reviewing the work of other academics, anonymously and unpaid. This undoubtedly makes the literature better than it would otherwise have been, and ensures at least one reader for each paper.
I'm afraid it doesn't ensure that all papers will be read. Some papers can attract more attention, some papers can even receive too much comments with relevant comments being drown in the sea of observations.
Exactly. It's the same fallacy with open source code. Just because it could be reviewed, doesn't mean it has been. Formal or semi-formal groups that professionally review papers are essential. How are they going to get paid?
If you want research to be publicly available (as it should be) you can either put the reviewers on government dime (which isn't a great idea but it's better than nothing) or you can follow the system that was pretty much followed until now:
Research institutions that produce papers to be reviewed, pay up the reviewers, and then we make the research publicly available, because everyone is paid and happy. No need to double-pay the reviewers via per-paper costs etc. The cost of reviewing a paper is fixed. Hosting costs are trivial compared to that. The uni can take them on. In a sense sci-hub fixed the peer-reviewed industry. Formalize it (make all journals open-access) and we're done.
I'm afraid it doesn't ensure that all papers will be read. Some papers can attract more attention, some papers can even receive too much comments with relevant comments being drown in the sea of observations.