> Anyone can review, but the relative weight of each review is biased according to that reviewer's reputation, which in turn is based on the collective value of

> Anyone can review, but the relative weight of each review is biased according to that reviewer's reputation, which in turn is based on the collective value of the reviews they have received. Someone could be very good at reviewing papers but not particularly skilled at original research, or vice versa. They're different skill sets. Also, giving the most cited authors the most power would have a homogenizing effect: the best way to get ahead would then be to push things that support the viewpoints of those currently at the top of the field. (I agree that something needs to change; I'm better at critiquing ideas than generating my own...)