Post #1331571

@zackbatist I think I disagree with you a little. I feel like the narrative that we had fooled ourselves into thinking that peer review is a sufficient quality indicator is at odds with my experience as an academic. I think everyone has always been able to think of published papers that they thought were not worth the paper they were printed on… but I think also that peer review had in implicit line it was trying to maintain: reject obvious nonsense while leaving for the subsequent literature to sort out problem papers that themselves required intelligent/detailed argument to reject. even that line was porous, but scale now makes it totally untenable