so i have discussed this very issue online and people who generally are possessive about peer reviews and journals in particular seem to swear by it. They say "

so i have discussed this very issue online and people who generally are possessive about peer reviews and journals in particular seem to swear by it. They say "well i don't have time to go through 10,000 journals published every year. i know the nature journal has 10 which are worth anything so i ignore the rest because editors of nature have done a good job. they have a legacy to maintain". which honestly sounds great but why can't we just facebook and social-ify and gamify the whole thing? you are a scholar wanting to make a name in say gene modification. you "know" of a scientist from your professor who says is good. you check his/her profile and see their work. they "like" the work of another professor who you dont know but since the first professor said the second guy is great and the third guy sound reasonable enough, why not read their work.... so on and so forth" you'd render journals useless and all you need is scihub. everyone publishes into the pool and the "social" aspect of liking and sharing will help. it will turn into linkedin and tiktok eventually but should'nt we get better results when there is no "pressure" to publish in a "prestigious journal"