It’s rare that people are so honest about their agenda:
Lost time in the current peer review process: In the current journal submission process, rejection is common, yet reviews are rarely shared from one journal to the next. Even when reviews are passed along, the lack of an industry-wide standard means that each journal in the chain solicits its own reviews before making a decision. All of this leads to reviewers repeating work that has already been done on the same manuscript by other colleagues. We estimate that over 15 million hours are spent on redundant or unnecessary reviews – every year.
“Peer Review: How We Found 15 Million Hours of Lost Time” at AJE Scholar
But wait. Fellow Nobelists generally reviewed Albert Einstein’s papers. His only rejection occurred under the modern systemwhich this proposal would ramp up.
And science is stalemated today.
Ramping up the current system would merely enable 10 dunces to do the work of 100 dunces.
Science bureaucrats, promote this idea! YOUR lives are easier. The other people in the process… not so much.
See also: Einstein’s only rejected paper. It was the only one reviewed anonymously, as is the practice today. Today’s collection of scholarly literature is exploding in quantity and deteriorating in quality. One solution is to return to review practices at the time of Einstein. Today’s collection of scholarly literature is exploding in quantity and deteriorating in quality. One solution is to return to review practices at the time of Einstein. The reviewers were much better qualified and were not anonymous.
Why is it so hard to reform peer review? Robert J. Marks: Reformers are battling numerical laws that govern how incentives work. Know your enemy!
and
Anti-plagiarism software goof: Paper rejected for repeat citations The scholar was obliged by discipline rules to cite the flagged information repetitively
Hat tip: Pos-darwinista