Hacker News Reader

The process is far from perfect, but it works well enough mid-term and works pretty well long-term.

It's also better than any alternatives, as far as I know. Haven't heard people pushing the idea of restructuring the process, the only exception being that journals shouldn't cost (that much) money and instead institutions should pay for publishing a paper. This wouldn't however change the foundation of the process.

View on HN

What about the publish or perish effect ? no ideas on how to rebalance things to avoid it ?

Yes. It's simple. Establish peer review as the metric of tenure and make dam sure those peers know their stuff.

> Establish peer review as the metric of tenure and make dam sure those peers know their stuff.

And you are back at square one: peer reviews become the currency used in academic politics. A relatively small group of tenured academics have all the incentives to independently form a fiefdom. Anonymization does not help as everyone knows work and papers of the rest anyway.

The supply of knowledgeable and conscientious reviewers in, say, machine learning, is far outmatched by the number of papers less knowledgeable and conscientious people submit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com