The problem is not the opaque peer review system. Instead of making the reviews transparent, some journals solicit notes from other researchers to discuss the

The problem is not the opaque peer review system. Instead of making the reviews transparent, some journals solicit notes from other researchers to discuss the published articles. It is an ethical responsibility to publish notes which criticize previously published articles, regardless of how painful it is for the publisher to publish them. e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6069/665.summary http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6069/665.summary Reading an article that falsifies claims of another article is pure scientific joy. And such articles are not uncommon at all! The problem is, as pointed out in the beginning of the paragraph "we need to get past the antiquated idea that the singular act of publication – or publication in a particular journal – should signal for all eternity that a paper is valid, let alone important".