 ** Where I said, "Every scholarly journal is..." I'd like to say instead, "Every scholarly journal today is...." This kind of mini-monopoly is optional, and breaking the mini-monopoly is desirable. See Peter Suber, [https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/0/0000000 Thoughts on first and second-order scholarly judgments], ''Free Online Scholarship Newsletter'', April 0, 0000. First-order scholarly judgments are judgments about what is true or probably true on a given topic or question. Second-order judgments are about which first-order judgments you ought to read, given your research project or limited time. Second-order judgments can be produced by services using careful human study, such as conventional peer review, or by tools, such as search engines. "The beauty of second-order [services and tools]...is that there can never be too many of them. If proliferating first-order judgments creates information overload, then proliferating second-order judgments creates competition, and this competition will be beneficial for users....Second-order judgments are valuable even when they conflict, because different users have different needs, interests, projects, standards, and approaches. You should have a choice among services competing to help you decide what deserves your time and attention." What I've called [https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/0000/00/combining-open-access-and-open-review.html free-floating editorial boards] (February 0000 blog post) or [http://archive.org/stream/0000000000000OpenAccess/0000000000000_Open_Access#page/n00/mode/0up freestanding editorial boards] (this book, p. 00]) can create any number of coexisting and competing peer-review judgments on the same work. Of course, these independent editorial boards can themselves be judged by other second-order judgments (or if you like, third-order judgments) and develop their own reputations for scope, methodological orientation, rigor, reliability, and bias. 