Instead of Journals with peer review.

Maybe have a distributed system of trust and file storage.

Where instead of 'peer review panels', you have public cryptographically signed endorsement by other scientist.

The system of trust is a bit more top down, in that the root trust is university institutions (or any other root certs you implicitly decided to trust).

You can decide to endorse a paper, or you can endorse a scientist.

If you want to submit a new paper for review, you need to already have reviewed and endorsed/reject enough papers.

Every endorsement/rejection can contain a comment by the scientist on why it was accepted or rejected.

Any paper that was accepted by enough peers will then have a trail of endorsement/rejection by the scientific community. The university can then have a choice of saving or deleting it after a deadline (except for the historical ledger).

Multiple universities can host other universities papers, in exchange for cross endorsing them (Web of trust applies to university level).

-----------

Summary:

* University institution (or other trusted institution) can attest a scientist or professor



* Scientist can provide their attestation to a new document/scientist, and their attestation is recorded in a distributed ledger in various repositories



* Each repositories can then obtain a copy of a journal based on how well attested it is. E.g. Maybe a elitist journal repository will only store journals that has been attested by more than 3 tenured professors from ivy league universities. While another may decide that only 100 scientist and a single professor from any recognised universities will be needed to be stored as a local copy.



* To submit the presence of a new journal to the network, you need to have already attested or reject enough journals.

* Every attestation/rejection can contain a timestamped comment by institutions or scientist. (Twitter sized?) This would provide a way to have a public feedback for the original author.