Hacker News Reader

I think the incentive structure has to be fixed - either making paper mills unnatractive, or removing the demand for their services, whichever.

I think filtering out bad faith efforts is too challenging because the pool of people capable of doing so is so limited, hell it might take longer to review and reject such a thing than to make it.

Scientific misconduct like deliberately falsifying results should be more of a career-ender.

An author and journal rating services evaluating merits across time. While poor scientists become evident to competing authors in their respective fields, a policymaker or journalist may not take the time to figure out if the results are meritable or a background of the authors and utilize the results to support their position. In a perfect world, these authors should be filtered during the "peer review" process, but the process seems... corrupted?