[DiogenesKynikos]

> It's not "the best we have", it's "the best those in power will allow". Those in power do not want consequences for publishing bad research, and also don't want the reviewing load required to keep bad research out.

This is a very conspiratorial view of things. The simple and true answer is your last suggestion: doing a more thorough review takes more time than anyone has available.

Reviewers work for free. Applying the level of scrutiny you're requesting would require far more work than reviewers currently do, and maybe even something approaching the amount of work required to write the paper in the first place. The more work it takes to review an article, the less willing reviewers are to volunteer their time, and the harder it is for editors to find reviewers. The current level of scrutiny that papers get at the peer-review stage is a result of how much time reviewers can realistically volunteer.

Peer review is a very low standard. It's only an initial filter to remove the garbage and to bring papers up to some basic quality standard. The real test of a paper is whether it is cited and built upon by other scientists after publication. Many papers are published and then forgotten, or found to be flawed and not used any more.

[ksenzee]

> Reviewers work for free.

If journals were operating on a shoestring budget, I might be able to understand why academics are expected to do peer review for free. As it is, it makes no sense whatsoever. Elsevier pulls down huge amounts of money and still manages to command free labor.

[withinboredom]

I think it has to be this way, right? Otherwise a paid reviewer will have obvious biases from the company.

[ksenzee]

It seems to me that paying them for their time would remove bias, rather than add it.

[nativeit]

How is that?

[flir]

I guess the sensible response is "what bias does being paid by Elsevier add that working for free for Elsevier doesn't add?"

The external bias is clear to me (maybe a paper undermines something you're about to publish, for example) but I honestly can't see much additional bias in adding cash to a relationship that already exists.

[ksenzee]

Exactly. At least if the work is paid, the incentive to do it is clearer.

[vixen99]

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-pape...

[eeeeeeehio]

>The real test of a paper is whether it is cited and built upon by other scientists after publication. Many papers are published and then forgotten, or found to be flawed and not used any more.

This does seem true, but this forgets the downstream effects of publishing flawed papers.

Future research in this area is stymied by reviewers who insist that the flawed research already solved the problem and/or undermines the novelty of somewhat similar solutions that actually work.

Reviewers will reject your work and insist that you include the flawed research in your own evaluations, even if you’ve already pointed out the flaws. Then, when you show that the flawed paper underperforms every other system, reviewers will reject your results and ask you why they differ from the flawed paper (no matter how clearly you explain the flaws) :/

Published papers are viewed as canon by reviewers, even if they don’t work at all. It’s very difficult to change this perception.

[DiogenesKynikos]

If you get such a simple-minded reviewer, you can push back in your response, or you can even contact the editor directly.

Reviewers are not all-powerful, and they don't all share the same outlook. After all, reviewers are just scientists who have published articles in the past. If you are publishing papers, you're also reviewing papers. When you review papers, will you assume that everything that has ever passed peer review is true? Obviously not.