[danso]

> But this is not the point - editorial quality is not what science publishing is about - scientific quality is the issue. Are the results repeatable and significant? Not is it a convincing read?

This is true, and theoretically something that is quantifiable. Yet it isn't. Not just because of the possibility of faked data and results, but because even self-evident scientific worth is not always easily recognized, especially if it is hard to find in an obscure journal. No one wants to be the scientist who has great findings but gets ignored because the world is too busy to pay attention.