[dataduck]

I came across this recently and your post made me wonder what you'd think of it:

https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall...

I won't butcher the piece with a poor summary but it's a critical look at the peer review process.

[icelancer]

I've read this post - broadly, I agree very much with it.

Unfortunately, inertia is a hell of a thing. Science is stuck with peer review for a few more decades at the very least. Many postgrads would do unspeakable things and commit various crimes to become a first author on a paper accepted into Nature, for example. It just means everything to academics.

arXiv is the biggest undermining threat to the professional peer review process, but in a weird way, it also bolsters it.

Anyway, at least Computer Science doesn't care much about academic journals. Hacker culture remains fairly strong.

[colonwqbang]

> arXiv is the biggest undermining threat to the professional peer review process, but in a weird way, it also bolsters it.

How do you mean?

[JPLeRouzic]

I am a layperson but I guess arXiv moderation is not different from peer-review. Some authors have voiced concern over the lack of transparency in the arXiv screening process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv#Moderation_process_and_e...