[fc417fc802]

> You're misreading xondono as well as me. I think your idea of what peer review is (in practice) is too idealized.

I think it is you who has an ideological axe to grind and is missing the forest for the trees (in this case the practical benefits for the drawbacks). Of course the process isn't perfect. Of course it's a spectrum. That's precisely how journals end up with reputations.

If you don't want to play the reputational game, fine, self publish on your website. Protocols such as ipfs and centralized archives such as arxiv make that easier than ever. But just because you choose to reject a process doesn't mean that it isn't of benefit to other people. And it should go without saying that just because something is of benefit to me (in this case as a reader) doesn't mean that it isn't also flawed in some way.

[godelski]

You haven't convinced me, you only made an appeal to authority. It's fine if you don't accept my evidence or reasoning but just appealing to authority or tradition is not an argument that the current system is better than an alternative one.

[fc417fc802]

I made a few claims but I don't believe I made any appeals to authority. That would be of the form "peer review is good because X says so, therefore you are wrong". If you wish to challenge any of the claims I made I am open to it.