[birn559]

The process is far from perfect, but it works well enough mid-term and works pretty well long-term.

It's also better than any alternatives, as far as I know. Haven't heard people pushing the idea of restructuring the process, the only exception being that journals shouldn't cost (that much) money and instead institutions should pay for publishing a paper. This wouldn't however change the foundation of the process.

[agumonkey]

What about the publish or perish effect ? no ideas on how to rebalance things to avoid it ?

[Daub]

Yes. It's simple. Establish peer review as the metric of tenure and make dam sure those peers know their stuff.

[friendzis]

> Establish peer review as the metric of tenure and make dam sure those peers know their stuff.

And you are back at square one: peer reviews become the currency used in academic politics. A relatively small group of tenured academics have all the incentives to independently form a fiefdom. Anonymization does not help as everyone knows work and papers of the rest anyway.

[ancillary]

The supply of knowledgeable and conscientious reviewers in, say, machine learning, is far outmatched by the number of papers less knowledgeable and conscientious people submit.