It may not be trivial to replace the current system. But the current system is certainly not a local maximum. As a former academic who has been doing research f

It may not be trivial to replace the current system. But the current system is certainly not a local maximum. As a former academic who has been doing research for more than 15 years, it's hard to reconcile the idea of a local maximum, or, say, a system for advancing knowledge that works well, with (a) submitting an article to a journal, (b) sending it in for review, (c) getting a rejection notice with reviews that don't make sense to the point where you get the sense that they've reviewed another article, (d) sending an appeal to the Associate Editor making it clear that the reviews don't make sense, (e) having the AE respond that they themselves have read the article and agree with the reviewers. Most people, especially outside of academia, think that the problems with the peer review process are something more "philosophical" than they are, like the old establishment not wanting the new generation of physicists to present and support a new "Standard Model". But the real problems are more mundane, and consist of thousands of people wasting time and energy following processes that are, for the most part, crazy.