You assume honesty and certain comprehension abilities on part of all those who take that oath. Clearly, that is a misplaced assumption here.

That’s their model indeed; hence the “building upon” in my question. 🙂

For example, if the eLife editorial layer is removed, does peer review remain sustainable?

What are your thoughts on building upon eLife's reviewed preprint model, which fits many of the boundary conditions that you have stated?

Technology shouts for itself; science is more abstract and subtle. We cannot assume that the value of science is self-evident to the public.

In "How Science Speaks", we will hear how scientists and science writers communicate complex ideas about the history and practice of science to non-experts.

@Predrag: I fear for our colleagues in the humanities, perhaps a tad more than for those in the sciences. Art History seems to have faced headwinds even before the current state of affairs.

Signature size seems to be the core issue here!

circa

Circle brings to mind neighborhood?

PI is irrational and I try not to be.