The reasonable solution for evaluating researchers has always been peer review, not publication. The gold standard in science (going back generations) has alway

The reasonable solution for evaluating researchers has always been peer review, not publication. The gold standard in science (going back generations) has always been peer replication, not publication. A white paper that has been cited 0 times and never replicated is as good as scientific fake news as far as I'm concerned. We all saw this live with LK-99. Publication isn't the end, it's the beginning. Replication is literally all that matters.