<story><title>Real peer review has never been tried</title><url>https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/real-peer-review/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>Barrera</author><text>I was expecting the author to define &amp;quot;real peer review,&amp;quot; but didn&amp;#x27;t see that. The best approximation is probably gleaned from the conclusion:&lt;p&gt;- integration of preprint servers and alt metrics&lt;p&gt;- tweaking incentives to review&lt;p&gt;- making comments on papers public&lt;p&gt;- use of software to detect fraud&lt;p&gt;- directing resources specifically to improving peer review&lt;p&gt;The bigger problem is that the author doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to actually zero in on the problem peer review is supposed to solve today. The author notes that peer review really got going in the 1970s as a way to filter content flowing to overwhelmed editors. But the emergence of the internet largely nullifies that problem. Wide distribution of scientific information no longer requires scientific publishers.&lt;p&gt;The real problem is the ways in which science funding, journals, and peer review have become intertwined, with publishers playing the role of bankers in this economy. This problem is cultural, not technical. It&amp;#x27;s a historical relic and it increasingly does not serve science well.&lt;p&gt;So, what is the actual problem that journal-supervised peer review is supposed to solve in the age of the internet?</text></comment>
<story><title>Real peer review has never been tried</title><url>https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/real-peer-review/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>lacker</author><text>The problem is that looking at journal quality is the best quick way to evaluate how good a paper is, when you aren&amp;#x27;t an expert on the topic. And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made by people who aren&amp;#x27;t experts.&lt;p&gt;Nowadays a journal provides essentially no distribution, but there&amp;#x27;s no good alternative to journals as a &amp;quot;stamp of quality&amp;quot;.</text></comment>