> Worse still, many papers are basically unintelligible to anyone outside of an "inner circle". Right now we have papers simply filled with nonsense (https://l

> Worse still, many papers are basically unintelligible to anyone outside of an "inner circle". Right now we have papers simply filled with nonsense (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08021-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08021-2) and papers on midi-chlorians (https://www.livescience.com/59927-midi-chlorians-paper-accepted-by-journals.html https://www.livescience.com/59927-midi-chlorians-paper-accep...). Even without the needlessly over-complicated writing, some papers may really only be able to be meaningfully reviewed by a small number of experts, but that won't be a huge number. Really I'd be happy if we managed to catch the papers any child in grade school could spot as phony. Maybe we shouldn't be asking if peer-review is a good idea based on it's performance so far until we give it a serious effort.