True for a particular dominant but antiquated and rapidly aging out model of peer review. Peer review as practiced at PeerJ, eLife, F1000, etc. is collaborative

True for a particular dominant but antiquated and rapidly aging out model of peer review. Peer review as practiced at PeerJ, eLife, F1000, etc. is collaborative, productive, and maintains integrity in a visible way. Peer review is not inherently terrible. Exploitative rent seeking publishers that commoditize academic careers and outputs, and hold knowledge to ransom, are the problem. Please, everyone, stop publishing in journals that do harm. Think about what the impact of where you publish a paper is and align your choices with your values.