I've argued for this for years with my colleagues, and recently have changed my mind a bit, kinda. The current dissemination regime breeds hype, for sure, but

I've argued for this for years with my colleagues, and recently have changed my mind a bit, kinda. The current dissemination regime breeds hype, for sure, but it's naive to think that getting rid of peer reviewed journals won't get rid of hype. In fact, it might make it worse. Journals don't hype, people do. Does anyone think academic Twitter is a better system? That it's less susceptible to hype? There's all sorts of things related to this. For example, I've noticed that the tendency of Google to stop returning results that are older than five years or so extends to many paper archive services. So what does that mean? If Google treats them differently, and you now have to rely on self-serving tweets to even know a paper exists, is that better? Is relying on monopolies like Google or Twitter good for science? Scientific communication needs to change but I'm not sure what it needs to change into. Something decentralized or federated, something that allows for systematic revision and review but is open, something that is permanent and searchable.