The solution is still within peer review, I feel. What ethical alternative is there?
Required reproduction of the result could be a step forward, but only for cheap research.
Required reproduction of the result could be a step forward, but only for cheap research.
As I understand it, modern peer review came about as a 'crowd sourcing" solution to the hugely expanding number of articles to publish, in ever more specialized fields.
The journals couldn't keep enough relevant expertise around, so letting the scientists review each other was the simple fix.
Before scientists started reviewing each other, who at the journal was judging the work of scientists to be published? Scientists?
The point is that they did not have a conflict of interest.
In 2020 peer review, people are often asked to review the work of their rivals. So they're incentivized to (1) say that it's bad and demand many changes, and/or (2) steal their ideas.
Peer review in my field is a random process. It's not corrupt; it's just that reviewers give papers a 30 second skim. I've had one paper really reviewed in my whole career. What gets in and out is just random. NIPS did a nice study on this many years back.
On the flip side, academic discourse gets delayed. People aim for Science/Nature, and then down the line. Journals / conferences aim for the prestige of high reject rates. Research goes out sometimes years too late.
Peer review gives the impression of credibility, without the reality. It should be gone. Tiers of journals should be gone too.