> Well, despite the parasitic nature of the modern commercial journal world (and originally they did come from more benevolent aims, but got consumed by corporations) -- they do serve an important filtering and quality control mechanism.

No they don't. Their editors do, not the entire organization, and really it's the selected (volunteer) peer reviewers who do.

> A 100% open and free journal cannot achieve selectivity without having some judgement and bias applied.

Agreed.

> One that's hard for an intrepid band of volunteers to recreate without funding and full time commitment. Who will be the editors?

That's why I think universities should be the founders. The top professors in a certain field can nominate a good editor, who will be paid full-time.

> There's also the problem of how to create a new journal that has the prestige of an old established one. Which new journal will we select to have the prestige?

Prestige comes from being relevant and innovative. Also, who said this has to be a new journal? Why not convert an established on?