{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Redish Lab wrote","author_name":"Redish Lab (npub16j…cknep)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub16jr6tn76pth8u36wjh0j09zmed42aue7slg8er9nw3qtl6wuh3us8cknep","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"The true thing is peer review, that is, non-conflicted experts assessing the validity of the work.\n\nPeer review can be improved.  We (you, me, and many others) have spent years discussing various ways to implement it. \n\nThe journal was invented in 1665, where scientific editors judged quality (\"peer\" review of the work) or societies judged entry (review of the individual, but not the science itself).  Assessment cycles in which experts provide advice to those editors and authors respond was invented in the 1950s.  Frontiers developed an endorsement model that reduced gate-keeping and editor power in 2007.    eLife started using its preprint commentary model in 2022 that enhanced editorial power, but was post-preprint peer review.  We're still working on the best solution.  \n\nBut... the most important thing is peer review is not some random comments from someone (often in conflict of interest) who has something to say about the paper.  It is an assessment by an expert that takes time and effort and is done for others, not for oneself.  It is a very powerful tool to improve scientific progress.\n\nAt this point, my opinion is the following (but I am still observing the scientific sociology to see how things work): \n\n- Within field, preprints work fine. \n\n- The binary published/not of \"peer reviewed\" journals did not work as well as we hoped.\n\n- For scientists outside of a field, the new #eLife system of commentary works well.  It provides detailed commentary that one can use to judge a paper's quality.\n\n- For non-scientists (journalists, policy-makers, judges (!), etc), we need some sort of binary gate-keeping system.  It would be good if we had a better one than the current glamourized journal system.\n\nPS. I have previously said that peer reviews used for editorial gate-keeping shouldn't be published.  That is because those peer reviews are \"advice to the editor\" to make the binary journal yes/no decision.  They serve a different role than the eLife public assessment.  I would be fine if these \"reviews are published\" assessments included three separate components:\n\n(1) a private message to editor and authors that is designed to make the paper better [not published],\n\n(2) a private message to the editor and authors about whether the paper should enter the literature as is (or at all) and if fixes could make it suitable to enter the literature [not published], \n\n(3) a public assessment of the quality of the work [this is published]"}