> But heading straight to “tear down the journals” seems mistaken. Ultimately, I think journals can be reformed but it’ll break their business model. Effectiv

> But heading straight to “tear down the journals” seems mistaken. Ultimately, I think journals can be reformed but it’ll break their business model. Effectively, you can publish without reviews. Then have credentialed people anywhere anonymously making comments / challenges. You can also let the public similarly comment. Similar to movie reviews - people in and out of the industry could both review. On top of that, allocate 25% of grants for replication which could be done in a somewhat public manner and attached to as a report on the paper. Things like that. That said, Einstein had his work initially rejected. There weren’t strong journals at the time as a gate keeper. Just people would publish and publicly debate — I don’t think there’s an issue with that now. Particularly, With the internet.