You're inflating the flaws, while diminishing the success of the existing system. Pick a field and pick the top 3 journals. Now how many of the papers publish

You're inflating the flaws, while diminishing the success of the existing system. Pick a field and pick the top 3 journals. Now how many of the papers published in those journals were junk science? The fact that you have unscrupulous journals and editors, doesn't go away with blogs. Its all the same. Personally, I don't care what the medium is, but I'm worried that organizations whose purpose is to highlight good work might die out. I think the problem is similar to selecting 3 resumes from a pile of 2000 resumes. If you look at the existing HR system, yeah, it sucks and good candidates are often overlooked over bad candidates who get hired because they're ex-Google or w/e, but then again you can't just dump two thousand resumes on your dev manager, and have them go through each one. Also, before you propose tearing down a system that has produced results for decades, but is flawed, you have to show that the replacement is actually useful and capable of at-least performing on par. I have no problem with casual discussion on HN (in fact I actively avoid the insane people who want "proof" for everything) so I don't really care to hold your comment up to a gold standard of absolute certitude, but you should probably give your ideas a bit more thought.