@adredish @elduvelle @albertcardona @jonmsterling the only difference I see is in eLife's favour. I know for a fact that there are papers out there published in good journals where there was only one reviewer and that reviewer stated that the paper has misleading claims not justified by the results. I know because I was that reviewer. And it didn't happen only once. So the fact that there is one paper in eLife where the reviewers weren't keen doesn't seem like a very high proportion to me, and there is the huge advantage that we can actually see it. In the cases I know about I'm the only person who knows this. But those papers are being listed on CVs. What we need to do is not to consider eLife papers as a downgrade compared to a "refereed" one, but get over the deeply wrong idea that having gone through an opaque peer review process counts for much.