> So what you are suggesting is that we do away with that (fine!) and replace it with --- something handwavy (not fine). I wasn't really trying to suggest any

> So what you are suggesting is that we do away with that (fine!) and replace it with --- something handwavy (not fine). I wasn't really trying to suggest any concrete system to replace the current one. Neither would I be able to do so nor would it really matter since such a system couldn't be implemented in a top-down fashion. I was pondering how things are and why, which is hard enough, as well as what trends I see positively (which are simultaneously actionable recommendations for both funding agencies and scientists). > many of your arguments about the lack of efficacy of the system or other flaws don't seem to me to capture how much worse it could be Sure, I think science as a whole has never been more productive. Many trends also look positive: besides what I named above, there is also increased industry collaboration for applied research, increased funding overall, etc. The main challenge will be the price of creating fraudulent submissions going down and hacking the system becoming more prevalent. I think the only way to address this is to significantly reduce the "perceived authority" of any work that comes from using a LaTeX template, as well as authority that comes with the label "peer reviewed".