[thaumasiotes]

> I am not qualified to make a judgement here, the point is following the process is better than jumping the gun on principle.

Why? The process is quite obviously net negative; we'd get better results with no process at all.

[Retric]

> we'd get better results with no process at all.

I’m going to give some advice that you probably won’t understand for years, but when you don’t find value in a process you’re missing something about what it’s doing.

A common shortcut is to look past who is making money to who is paying for that process and why they would want to pay for it.

[thaumasiotes]

In this case, the process is paid for by the government, and the reason they do it is that they wish to outsource the decision of which scientists on their payroll should be promoted.

If you're willing to stipulate their goals, it's easy to understand why they appreciate this system. But there is no benefit to other parties. As far as society is concerned, this is a big loss and an unforced error.

[Retric]

You’re mistaken in thinking it’s paid for by the government, though yes many governments are collectively a significant funding source they are far from the only funding source here.

The most critical function by far is it saves people doing research vast amounts of time. That includes people working at pharmaceutical companies, students, and non profits etc not just government employees. Thus why private colleges who don’t do cutting edge research as well as private labs etc still subscribe to such journals and thus fund the system.

This is a vast win for society. Could it be improved, sure, but you need to understand the value in order to build something that’s an actual improvement.