People have been saying this for decades. Both the idea that the academic publishing model is about to die (due to too many papers, low quality, broken peer rev

People have been saying this for decades. Both the idea that the academic publishing model is about to die (due to too many papers, low quality, broken peer review, etc.), and that we need to focus on reproducibility. These ideas itself are valid but not nuanced. I could also argue that academic publishing as at its most successful ever with science advancing at an incredible pace even as complexity is so high, and I could argue that everyone is now thinking about reproducibility and it's baked into the academic process these days (for decades, having another lab reproduce your paper is critical to it being accepted by the community even after being accepted for publication). Maybe an analogy I would use it if I were to say "software is so broken, the quality is getting worse over time, new programmers can't fizzbizz, security bugs everywhere, no one can even reliably make a heathcare website or computer game on time." Same argument that you're making.