That's a great article you linked to. Pretty eye-opening, to me at least. I feel a little different about peer review now. > decisions about what to publish an

That's a great article you linked to. Pretty eye-opening, to me at least. I feel a little different about peer review now. > decisions about what to publish and what to reject were usually made by journal editors, often acting largely on their own. These decisions were often made rapidly, with papers appearing days or weeks after submission, after a cursory review by the editor. Rejection rates at most journals were low, with only obviously inappropriate or unsound material being rejected Maybe this isn't possible today because of extreme specialization, but this sounds like a system with a lot of positives (relative to what we have now). ArXiv-like.