I appreciate the problems associated with peer review as you describe them.in my mind there are two important aspects that could be considered. Firstly and for me, peer review always improves the quality of my work. Though perhaps fraught with problems, if the reviewer takes some level of interest, comments are always useful. Secondly (and most importantly, the real peer review only takes place AFTER publication. A consensus about an important piece of work (or shit) emerges really quickly in a field. No matter what the politics or COIs were. Same for problems after publication. I'm a fan of post pub peer review and a more dynamic publication platform (where you can update a paper after publication)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: