The concept of 'putting your work out there', then getting open access feedback & dialogue is appealing, but it breaks dramatically with the traditional peer-reviewed journal concept of publishing.
What do you see as the pros & cons of this format?
How can it be incorporated in the evaluation of PhD students?
If we take the issue of cost out of the equation - would you use it?
I do not see the break. For me publication does not end, but does open the debate. So when a text is published, everybody can feel free to criticize it and to develop alternatives. Peer-review does in no way make a text sacro-sanct and does not cause an exception tp the principle described. Cumulative quality depends on the discussion process following publication.