I agree that peer review greatly improves academic publishing, because criticism always accelerates intellectual development. But it doesn't have to take the f

I agree that peer review greatly improves academic publishing, because criticism always accelerates intellectual development. But it doesn't have to take the form practiced by contemporary journals. This recent NASA publication[1] is a good example of how the old system can break down, and how peer review can occur outside that system anyway.[2] It's actually already possible for people to publish that way today. PLoSOne is one facility for this. Unfortunately, there is so much momentum behind the old system that outlets like PLoSOne are seen as dumping grounds for papers which weren't accepted by conventional journals. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21127214 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21127214 [2] http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-ba...