Chris Triggle and co-authors, in the closing paragraph of their [excellent article on research metrics](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481):
> Considering the wider publishing landscape, [Brembs (2019)](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117) has argued for replacing the legacy journals completely, with peer-review and publishing infrastructure governed by scholars themselves. While some will argue that such a scenario is still a long way off, however, as a first step it should be possible to build on the success of pre-print servers and provide a new model where more OA journals emerge that operate under the same principles of preprint servers with an open review process conducted on-line and at minimal cost. Via this route there would be no reason to publish in traditional journals. […] Such an initiative certainly has its attractions; however, many questions remain such as how a new publishing model would be managed and by whom, and how it would be sustained. Also, how rapidly and how universally would such changes be accepted and granting agencies, universities and industry adjust their practices and their methods of assessment? As noted by [Niles et al. (2020)](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228914) resistance from some authors can also be expected. Nevertheless, it is definitely time for a change and, hopefully in 2021, 57 years after the release of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a Changin’”, there will be changes that facilitate a fully OA and online affordable publication platform as suggested above.
It's an endorsement, of the it-will-be-hard-but-what's-the-alternative variety, of a [publish, review, and curate](https://elifesciences.org/articles/64910) (PRC) model. Read the [full article](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481?journalCode=gacr20): it includes a lucid overview of the JIF's flaws and the limitations of various article or researcher-specific alterantives like the h-index. There's some good APC-bashing too. From their introduction:
> The value of OA is unquestionable and we have previously argued very strongly for the removal of paywalls. Unfortunately, however, OA can come with a high price tag that is usually paid from the public purse [(Triggle and Triggle 2017)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17583174/). These paywalls discriminate against those researchers and institutions that lack the financial resources to cover the cost of OA […] “Publish or perish” has become “Pay to Publish or Perish”, but does it have to be this way?