3 ms·
> That honestly sounds like it either would be a step backwards, or it would end up re-inventing peer review. Peer review is good. Pre publication peer review
by barry-cotter 5y ago
> That honestly sounds like it either would be a step backwards, or it would end up re-inventing peer review.
Peer review is good. Pre publication peer review is bad. Bring back the pre WW2 system. End the enormous waste of reviewer time and ludicrous delay. If it was good enough for Einstein it’s good enough. The only person deciding if it’s good enough to publish should be one editor.
- tablespoon 5y ago> Peer review is good. Pre publication peer review is bad. Bring back the pre WW2 system. End the enormous waste of reviewer time and ludicrous delay. If it was good enough for Einstein it’s good enough. The only person deciding if it’s good enough to publish should be one editor. IIRC, the current peer review system was created because academic specialization and the quantity of papers increased mid-century to a point where the pre-WWII system became unworkable. Specialization and volume have continued to increase, and it's hard to see how that makes the old system workable again.