> The goto scientific SEO process hasn't really changed in centuries. > You submit your article to some exclusive groups of researchers, > anonymous peer revi

> The goto scientific SEO process hasn't really changed in centuries. > You submit your article to some exclusive groups of researchers, > anonymous peer review is arranged, and if deemed acceptable the > article is included in some publication. Barely 50 years, actually. Peer review is a latecomer to the party[1] and is actually part of the problem. It's fundamentally gatekeeping and (along with an analogous process in funding) serves to slow/prevent paradigm shifts by locking in popular models at the expense of creative thinking (e.g. the amyloid hypothesis[2]). It's not part of the scientific process, it's part of a concerted effort to tame and regularize it. [1] https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspective/ https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-histo... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652035/