I published a couple of papers in grad school, and what the article describes made me imagine the peer review process busted open for the world to see. Reading

I published a couple of papers in grad school, and what the article describes made me imagine the peer review process busted open for the world to see. Reading reviews sucks: good reviewers provide smart reasons that you're wrong, which you have to beat with more research saying that you're right. The editor makes the final decision, not always in your favor. In their "open peer review", the psychologists seemed to have all the class of a bunch of redditors. An uncomfortable process is made worse! Instead of motivating people to publish lame results for tenure, this new situation seems to motivate people to act like Internet trolls or tabloid journalists. A more critical research community should help advance the field, but these researchers set a bad example.