[magic_hamster]

Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth.

We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.

[glial]

Paper reviews are traditionally blinded, so the reviewer doesn't know the authorship of the paper they're reading.

[ViscountPenguin]

You could do a two stage process, a blinded text review and an unblinded review that can only be failed if you have a vigorous lack of knowledge about your work.

I highly doubt anything like that will be implemented though.

[matusp]

With the volume of outputs in today's academia, this is simply not possible. There are conferences with tens of thousands of submitted papers, grants have hundreds of pages, etc.

[jltsiren]

Grants typically have at most 10 pages of actual content. The rest is mostly compliance with regulations.

[SpicyLemonZest]

If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.

[watwut]

Big part of the annoyance is that journals demand basically free labor - while costing massive amount of money if you want to read them.

A review call might just end up being less work then reading a lot of slop papers.