Or are we just preternaturally triggered by multiple review requests, albeit with a contemporary ability to vent more conspicuously via social media?!

Elsewhere (doi.org/10.1017/S001...) you have -exquisitely!- shown that *even in the prehistory of peer review* reviewers fretted over the time drain ("referees worrying that much of their ‘valuable time’ was being ‘practically wasted on such work’" etc) Is the current drain qualitatively different?

The same Charles Babbage of "Reflections on the Decline of Science and some of its Causes" (1830)? Arguing "English science as moribund, English scientists as amateur and corrupt, and English scientific culture and reform as lamentably inferior to those of other countries, especially France"

In this paper, 1/2 the authors (inc me) have an orcid link ….because we were told we couldn’t add them for others late in the publication pipeline.
Yes, that’s on us. BUT journal systems could be MUCH better at prompting and encouraging ids across the process.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10....

This isn’t a direct answer to your question but it looks like OpenAlex - as an open infra for bibliometric curation does go to zenodo for material

help.openalex.org/hc/en-us/art...

Maybe @dalmeet.bsky.social (freelance, but written there)?

Can recommend for example, oro.open.ac.uk/90930/1/TAS2...
as an exemplar of thinking about the people -and their psychology- behind the software.
@parseraisin.bsky.social for example has been great in thinking through facets of this

Just an outside observer, but it looks messy, and if you were an author, potentially it would be terrible

www.chemistryworld.com/news/japanes...

But even then, just because the system is supposed to provide the idealised backup, when the rubber hits the road ….

rossmounce.co.uk/2024/06/11/t...

Also, there’s a good reason why reputable journals consider a system like LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe), ie built in redundancy by design

Nothing is guaranteed for ever of course …. But Zenodo can archive GitHub and provide automatic doi for each version, and zenodo has more reason to prioritise longevity

Disruptive work can be game changing even when it turns out to be mistaken in important ways, eg when it changes the narrative about the questions that then come into focus.

And with ground-breaking work being done today: we won’t really know for a long while, and until lots of people put the hard yards in, the ways in which the conclusions hold firm or the ways in which we inevitably overlook important facets that turn out to make a difference.

Just happened in 2016 to stumble onto Richard Misrach's exhibition "Border Cantos" at San Jose Museum of Art when on holiday (details eg fraenkelgallery.com/portfolios/r...). ~Similarly beautiful, stark, troubling. And to see it all at exhibition scale (size, extent) ...was breathtaking