oh man, another one of these "science/peer review is broken" type articles. without peer review, you have the equivalent of whatever is popular on twitter or other social media. Or total crap instead of possible crap.... Peer review is far from perfect but the alternative is even worse, imho. I think this is especially so in the hard sciences, but i will concede the point to the author that peer review is not as useful for social sciences as being a firewall against bad/wrong results.
Considering the replication crisis and the revelation that multiple schools have allowed for bogus data to slip through in numerous studies: I don’t see how you can pretend this would be any different than what we have now.
