hey, I think this model for publishing approaches perfection:
1) cost of publication is not a barrier for authors
2) open access, of course
3) papers are judged on TECHNICAL merit, not subjective opinions about relevance. This point might have been objectionable to our mathematician friends above, but it seems a good idea to me- just to keep the databases from getting clogged with non-reproduceable data. I feel this has been a growing problem.

I have two other suggestions that would render this project perfect to me.

1) double blinded review to eliminate unconscious bias.
2) VERY IMPORTANT TO ME: Quantitative ratings of reproduceability and support of claims which could be incorporated into array analysis pathways software for building relational outputs. These ratings will be happening informally in a non-quantitative fashion with the blogs around papers-lets make it quantitative and based solely on readers input. we just need an infrastructure to do so incorporated into the feedback/blog area of papers.