> If it is too hard for a group of scientists to figure out a flaw, then it is also too hard for two peer reviewers to figure out a flaw. The issue isn't that

> If it is too hard for a group of scientists to figure out a flaw, then it is also too hard for two peer reviewers to figure out a flaw. The issue isn't that flawed papers are necessarily hard to spot, the issue is that indiscriminate publishing means that anyone studying a topic has to wade through a lot of flawed ones before they find anything halfway useful. Time and attention are finite. Peer review and journals caring about reputation, in theory, caps the number of readers of rubbish papers at 2 (and disincentivises writing unpublishable crap to submit in the first place... although this is now eroded since generating rubbish papers is now effort-free)