arxiv and letting good stuff bubble up after-the-fact. Peer review in my field is a random process. It's not corrupt; it's just that reviewers give papers a 30

arxiv and letting good stuff bubble up after-the-fact. Peer review in my field is a random process. It's not corrupt; it's just that reviewers give papers a 30 second skim. I've had one paper really reviewed in my whole career. What gets in and out is just random. NIPS did a nice study on this many years back. On the flip side, academic discourse gets delayed. People aim for Science/Nature, and then down the line. Journals / conferences aim for the prestige of high reject rates. Research goes out sometimes years too late. Peer review gives the impression of credibility, without the reality. It should be gone. Tiers of journals should be gone too.