They're not removing the stamp of approval:
> with a short editorial assessment of the work’s significance and rigour
However, not getting the stamp of approval will no longer lead to the work not being accessible to people.
> with a short editorial assessment of the work’s significance and rigour
However, not getting the stamp of approval will no longer lead to the work not being accessible to people.
So does that mean that the only practical difference is that now when you list your papers for a promotion or tenure review you will write “eLlfe (approved)” instead of “eLife”? Then what is all the fuss about?
People had very mixed experiences with old-eLife’s editorial decisions, and some felt it was a bit clubby: papers from some labs sailed through to acceptance while similar work from others got editorially rejected (without review) for seemingly minor reasons. Their policy against requesting new experiments could certainly be used as a cudgel: an editor can just say you’re not convinced by a control and the paper’s DOA.
Thus, they are both uniquely positioned to make sweeping changes and have people doubt them.
2. The reviews use a controlled vocabulary, so I think you’d say eLife (excellent approach, major impact) or whatever the words are.
The fuss is about publication and approval being seen as linked in the academic hivemind. Even if you're able to see them as separate steps yourself, that doesn't mean that the academic world at large sees them as such, so if this fails to gain widespread acceptance, the reputation of eLife-the-journal might suffer, and having been published there will no longer look as good on your CV as it currently does.
I won't cry for them.