Gates Foundation open access move ‘shifts needle in right direction’

If Gates re-invested the $ saved from APCs into other quality assurance mechanisms such as those supporting formal peer review preprint mechanisms (e.g. https://www.reviewcommons.org) this would be a constructive 'moving the needle in the right direction'. But if the conclusion is that informal commenting on a tiny fraction of preprints, as Ms. Joseph appears to suggest, is a step in the right direction, then this is side-stepping the major issues we see every day in the biosciences with low quality, overinterpreted research papers misleading researchers (and consequently wasting billions of $ of research funding, not to mention compromising research careers). Peer review enhanced by professional quality control steps for research integrity and data analysis is an incredible asset to bioscience research and if the wealthiest funders stop supporting such costly mechanisms (executed at journals or by other entities) then the return on investment on their research funding will diminish dramatically.