2) there are definitely problems with journals and publishing but, like many similar absurdly reductive pronouncements, the argument that the current mode of scientific inquiry is bunk is both wrong and lacks nuance
the problem with modern publishing is that private equity is buying up publishers [0]. these publishers are then giving peer-reviewers no time and zero pay to do the necessary work of review [1] while also charging exorbitant rates for access. this is leading to worsening quality of the published research along with highly overburdened researchers who are stuck between shrinking funding [2] and their myriad other professional obligations
to just say that 'journals' are bunk is ignorant in a harmfully anti-empirical way. the process of empirical research and review is the entire reason why we see realworld results. foundations comprised of bullshit crumble fast but for some reason or another our economic system is highly driven to enshittifying everything it touches
to have defenders who claim AA is 'pushing the boundaries of the scientific method' sounds like the screeching refrain of anti-intellectual cargo cults, apeishly mimicking the features of rigor and methodology while avoiding any real accountability
[0] https://issues.org/how-academic-science-gave-its-soul-to-the...
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty/books-publishing...
Arxiv is dominated by CS [1] and nothing really changed over the years [2]. Saying about pushing the boundaries of scientific methods it was another rock into journals and the status quo on how it's done like p-hacking and other data manipulations. Being in open with community notes would would have a difference.
Empirical research can exist without journals, science can be for masses and journals are antithetical for sharing making the knowledge exclusive.
[1] https://info.arxiv.org/about/reports/submission_category_by_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv?useskin=vector#/media/Fi...