I don't think anyone who has ever reviewed a paper would consider these three things to be "myths" -- they are just obvious facts. I do think the peer review s

I don't think anyone who has ever reviewed a paper would consider these three things to be "myths" -- they are just obvious facts. I do think the peer review system will eventually change to something more like hacker news. It is a much more convenient way to do things than trying to find volunteers, mail out papers, collect responses, etc. Not to mention you can potentially draw from a larger audience and you make your work more easily accessible. One mechanism that does exist in peer review that I'm not sure could be easily reproduced is a sense of duty while reviewing a paper. When selected to review a paper, you know you are one of only a few who will determine the fate of this paper and you feel a responsibility to try hard to understand the paper and give it a fair critique. If a paper were just posted online for anyone to critique, people might not put forth as much effort in their reviews.