[ludicrousdispla]

The 'named' reviewers typically pass on the review responsibilty to grad students or less-senior colleagues. This is currently a generally accepted and sanctioned/encouraged practice. A social scoring system would need to eliminate that for true accountability.

[gradstudent]

Reviews are typically in conjunction with junior colleagues and the senior person is involved in the discussion and held responsible for the outcome. The junior folks then end up in the proceedings as external reviewers. In my experience anyway. I don't see an issue here. How else do you train junior researchers to review? Its how I learned and all those around me as well.

[weiliddat]

Yeah it's a well-known secret, and I think any sort of scoring system misses the point. The scentific method (and system, incl. peer reviews) is a public good (like good governance) that requires moral acknowledgement, the necessary social/cultural/political/academic pressures, and discipline of taking care of it by participating parties.

If you add a score/metric this incentivizes the wrong thing, like how money, funding, and career already incentivizes all the wrong non-scientific behaviors (like faking data, p-hacking, etc.)

[StableAlkyne]

> If you add a score/metric this incentivizes the wrong thing,

Don't we already have all of these things because academia decided to use H-index as a metric for career impact?

[weiliddat]

Yeah exactly. One more metric isn't going to solve it.