This sounds like a very short road to science by press conference, which in my view would be a very bad thing. I know it's tempting to want to immediately shout research results from a rooftop because new findings can be very exciting. As frustrating as the current peer review process is, it's ultimately one of the most important things about science as an entity.

I'm by no means saying that these biologists are poor researchers that could produce bad results (they're nobel laureates for god's sake), but it's a dangerous precedent to set. If false findings are made available before the research has been properly reviewed, the results can be extremely detrimental. In extreme cases, this is how "vaccines cause autism" can kick off. That was a study that was poorly reviewed, so you can imagine the danger of studies that are not reviewed at all.

I appreciate the concept and why it seems appealing, but as the saying goes "misinformation can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on." So, let's set up a hypothetical scenario. Say this sort of system is used to publish a study, and at the same time that study is also submitted for journal review. Well after a year this hypothetical study was found to have used poor methodology, and the findings are thus invalid. Unfortunately though, this process took a year to complete. That means for an entire year, false results have been spreading around the internet, and will likely to continue to spread for a good while before news of the false findings is adamantly available.

I digress, I've been drinking a bit and am probably rambling. I just wanted to heed caution if people are proceeding with this new concept. Not saying don't, but just to consider consequences of setting a new precedent in the scientific process.