having worked in academic publishing, i've concluded that peer review would perform best if it were embedded in the very act of reading (so post-publication, no

having worked in academic publishing, i've concluded that peer review would perform best if it were embedded in the very act of reading (so post-publication, non-formalized kind of peer review) instead of having it be a formalized process riddled with issues and cracks as it is currently. it would enable faster and more seamless communication, academics wouldn't be burdened with extra volunteer work, and publishers would still be able to curate works as the authors suggest (+ there are other ways to do it). sadly my impression is that it's simply too entrenched in the publishing process -- and publisher's raison d'etre to a large extent -- for the publishers to relinquish control of it