We're at a point where the average peer reviewed paper isn't noticeably better or inherently more trustworthy than the average preprint on arXiv/bioRxiv/medRxiv

We're at a point where the average peer reviewed paper isn't noticeably better or inherently more trustworthy than the average preprint on arXiv/bioRxiv/medRxiv/techRxiv/etc. Peer review adds a lot of cost, delay, and friction to the publishing process, but I don't think that it contributes very much -- the "peer" comments I've received on some of my papers were bafflingly obtuse and unhelpful -- and it could quite fairly be said that companies like Elsevier are openly villianous. I think that new paradigms are needed, but certainly more preprint servers are always a good thing. If one must publish in a journal, I have a handy rule of thumb: Only publish in a society journal. If the American Society of X, or the European X Society, won't publish your paper, then throw it up onto a preprint server, save it for a symposium, post about it on your blog/substack, or forget about it. Low-quality pay-to-play journals are shameful.