Everyone is already free to publish their work on the Internet. Not sure if the publishing model by itself is the core issue, or the science funding model at la

Everyone is already free to publish their work on the Internet. Not sure if the publishing model by itself is the core issue, or the science funding model at large. A symptom is the fetishisation of peer review as a gatekeeping mechanism, which I think is what you decry. Peer review is driven by the need of funding agencies to have some roughly objective criteria for personnel selection. Publish or perish. While it is not an ideal tool, I have a hard time coming up with a better alternative. Fundamentally science is about creating models of the world that are independently verifiable through experiment. Peer review inhabits an uncomfortable middle ground. While it serves a positive function in checking for methodological issues, it is only a distant proxy for independent experiments and is often prone to authority and group think.