Real peer review has never been tried - Works in Progress

The system of peer-review and publishing has worked for a long time when we were actually dependent on them for things like physical distribution of magazines, manuscripts, etc. Today, journals use the industry's reliance on peer-reviewed publications as a proxy for quality in order to coordinate a lot of unpaid labor. Authors are somewhat dependen... See more

Peer review was a huge, expensive intervention. By one estimate, scientists collectively spend 15,000 years reviewing papers every year. It can take months or years for a paper to wind its way through the review system, which is a big chunk of time when people are trying to do things like cure cancer and stop climate change. And

... See more

The paper you just read could never be published in a scientific journal. The studies themselves are just as good as the ones Ethan and I have published in fancyjournals, but writing about science this way is verboten.

For instance, in a journal you’re not allowed to say things like “we don’t know why this happens.” You’re not allowed to admit that ... See more