An opinionated critique of the practice of peer-review plus some radical suggestions on how to make Science better.
I admire, very deeply, the fact that you're not only talking about the problems but proposing feasible solutions.
I'm curious though, do you think they'll be implemented?
Great article. A question about the "Journals for socializing" section:
How would journals be a profitable business then?
I believe most journals gain money from people and institutions wanting to acccess to the papers they guard. With the solution proposed, I see a way lower market for the journals (scientists inside the field are able to read the raw papers, so they wouldn't need the features of the journal).
very interesting piece Alejandro!!
I am working on that subject for a while. Thinking about the article before making a more thoughtful reply.
Some ideas (I have exposed similar ideas to research labs, resistance is mainly cultural): https://open.substack.com/pub/spearoflugh/p/the-lamfada-project-c12
You're right about that.
Thank you for writing this up.
The problem with a fully public review system is that introduce bias into the assessment process, regardless of our intentions or integrity. The underlying bias inherent in each of us could affect the objectivity of the reviews. Maybe a hybrid approach, which incorporates both the "blind-review" process and a "public-disclosure" stage post-review, could be a workaround?