@egonw @scipost @chemistry these two things are distinct but not unrelated.

It's completely normal (and useful) for bigger breakthroughs to reach a wider audience.

It's useful and economical of everybody's time to have claims of groundbreaking discoveries be subjected to tougher refereeing.

It's simply practical to enable publishing more straightforward results in a more streamlined way.

That's exactly what SciPost tries to do. Many scientists have in fact pushed us to indeed do that.

@egonw @scipost @chemistry well opinions differ on this one, and that's OK.

Here is my take: you don't want multi (numerous!)-layered things. But having 2 layers isn't like having 10.

I for one can take my own papers, and extract the 10% of them which achieve something special and which I think everybody should read, the rest being better reserved for the specialists "inside" my field (the core).

@telescoper I really admire all you've done with @ojastro.bsky.social.

Perhaps a fairer statement would have been "struggling financially because sponsorships don't match their level of activity"?

Perhaps also "switch to an arXiv overlay model and abandon their independent open infrastructure, open refereeing, recognized metadata facilities and uniquely complete and transparent financial information systems"?

Dunno, 🤔 just thinking out loud here.