> this isn't cancer research that informs treatment regimes nor social science that informs public policy. it's code and theorems This is a dangerous line. Bei

> this isn't cancer research that informs treatment regimes nor social science that informs public policy. it's code and theorems This is a dangerous line. Being a reviewer in CS, I don't think peer review is easy. The work in this field is complex and require a lot of time to correctly evaluate the claims. First, CS/maths is not just code and theorems. There is indeed a lot of research which requires data and empirical validation, or propose new models. Second, it's not easy to verify claims, even for code or theorem. This is why peer review requires many reviewers, often from 2 to 6, to evaluate one paper for a conference or journal. No one can evaluate in 5min whether a 40 pages paper on ArXiv makes sense or not. When I read a 70 pages complex crypto paper, I prefer a peer reviewed, community-backed work than a PDF not verified by other researchers. When you're a reviewer, you realize that many papers are often butchered, or contain (partially) false statement, not always easy to spot.