|
Peer review is a cornerstone of academics, and there continues to be a prestige associated with it as well as with certain journals. This is especially true in certain circles. As far as I can tell though, functionally this is breaking down. People can find preprints and archived papers, and do, if they're searching by topic. So journals at this point are providing a peer review portal, and formatting. I happen to think the formatting does provide value. My sense is that at a good journal, there's a kind of stochastic improvement in errors and formatting, so that the numbers of errors go down on average, and the formatting improved, on average, over iterations back and forth with the copyeditor. As for peer review, I'm not so sure anymore. My sense is that it does provide some kind of stamp of approval from experts in the area, so if you don't know much about an area, it provides some sense that at least some small group of people in the area believe it meets some kind of basic standards. But that says very little, and the amount of noise in the review process is large. I think the core of the academic communication system is slowly being hollowed out, and being replaced by blogs, things like twitter and mastodon, and archives. At this point the peer review journal process provides some value, but it's being propped up by tradition. Already, with COVID, we're increasingly seeing the focus on preprints. Journalists and others are careful to note something hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, but everyone knows it matters little because they can turn to experts to find out what they think of it. If there aren't formal attempts to create an alternative, I think we'll just be left with people posting and passing around preprints and discussing them on twitter, mastodon, blogs, and message groups. If people want the nice formatting, and some stamp of approval, I think something else will have to be worked out. But the journals are starting to feel like they're getting in the way, in general, and represents some kind of power or status structure more than quality control system. Paying reviewers I think creates bad incentives as the author of the post points out. So do author-pays systems. What is maybe missing from the piece is some recognition that in the past, reviewers reviewed and editors edited in part as part of their job. That is, you were paid as a faculty member at a university, and that was what people understood you did. Pre-internet, this was all valuable service. Now that universities and others are more focused on faculty bringing in profits rather than paying for their services -- and questions are being raised about the value of journals in general -- we are seeing these questions about what reviewers get paid. I think in the future there will be value in article hosting and searching, and providing website frameworks for discussion and peer review, but I'm not sure they will look like journals per se. You'll see things like arxiv.org, but with commentary, rating, discussion, and approval infrastructure over them. That's what large libraries and research centers will be donating money to or paying for. I think journals per se will eventually start to seem kind of stodgy and old fashioned. |
It isn't, it was a mistake trying to bring it everywhere. Peer review is a way for your jealous colleagues to stop your novel, disruptive, or counter-intuitive research from being published; and while it may serve some purpose in some limited fields, for most fields it does little else but suppress good science.
If your peers understood where your field was going, they'd be doing the research, not reviewing it.
Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have journals with editors, but peer review is not necessary to good science, and in most fields it is a parasite.