Thanks David! The argument isn't against peer review as something that should happen but it's skeptical of what's actually happening in our current system. It's calling for it to be used differently and made much more transparent. Remove the accpet/reject function and make the reports public.

I don't believe that's what's really happening.

If research is rejected after peer review, it can be submitted elsewhere, on and on, until a journal accepts it. Publishers use journal cascades to redirect rejections into "lower-tier" journals. Is peer review filtering research or stratifying it?

I get it but I think whichever venue we chose for this there would be an angle for someone to ask "why there?" depending on their stance.

It was partly a timing thing, it made enough sense, and we could make it OA. I'm grateful for the experience we had publishing with Learned Publishing tbh.

Thanks Jason! There are a few comments I've had giving the picture that Astro journals are doing something right. I'll look more into this area, thanks for sharing your article!

It's a relief for me too! 😅

We embraced #preprints when the world was in need of a rapid solution and then returned to the journal-based status quo as if other issues can wait.

We have journals that stand as signifiers of trust and quality. The conceit is validation. But rather than filter research they stratify it according to brand values.

We have an overburdened and industrialised #PeerReview system where the outputs are often hidden from readers, and entirely wasted when a process ends in rejection.

#OpenPeerReview #PublishReviewCurate #ScholarlyPublishing

We have technology and infrastructure to radically rethink how science is communicated and evaluated. Yet we still rely on a system that evolved within the limitations of print.