> All we can say from these big trends is that we have no idea whether peer review helped, it might have hurt, it cost a ton, and the current state of the scien

> All we can say from these big trends is that we have no idea whether peer review helped, it might have hurt, it cost a ton, and the current state of the scientific literature is pretty abysmal. In this biz, we call this a total flop. "We can't say anything about this, so it's clearly a total failure." lol Seems like the author wants this both ways. Also, I don't know why they think replication would be more likely if we didn't have peer reviewers at all. Feels like a larger jump from "your study won't be reviewed" to "your study must be replicated" than from "your study is being reviewed" to "your study is being replicated".