Thread by @NoahHaber

Periodic reminder that our current peer review *institutions* != the whole concept of peer review.

Yes, our *current peer review institutions* are an utter disaster, but that implies exceedingly little about other implementations of peer review.

If I had to guess, the vast majority of claims that "peer review doesn't work" fail to separate implementation from concept and potential.

Any institution that is underemphasized, underfunded, hobbled, opaque, arbitrary, and easily manipulated tends to produce bad results.

Peer review can absolutely be and often is very effective for research improvement and curation when implemented well (particularly when based on guidance, embracing subjectivity, professionalized, rewarded etc).

That's just not the peer review we find in most journals today.

I (a peer) reviewed this article, and find that it makes a number of critical conceptual errors.

1) It operates under the assumption that peer review institutions are = peer review as a concept.

elemental.medium.com/the-absurdity-…

2) It justifies lack of peer review through cherry picked examples, and doesn't explore the counterfactual of having had them go under some form of peer review (institutionalized or otherwise)

3) It focuses on problems with peer review, but doesn't do so for no-peer-review.