It seems people are kneejerk downvoting you, but maybe the peer review process is a problem. It's worth questioning at least.
Eric Weinstein (for one) has been talking about this a lot and argues that it could be better to work out errors in public, instead of defaulting to consensus.
"The need for verification from others dampens the potential for imagination, which Weinstein believes to be essential for stretching beyond what is currently known to dream the unknowable. This, he argues, is how the sciences actually evolve.
Weinstein points to a 1963 Scientific American article by Paul Dirac in which the theoretical physicist discusses the discovery of a third dimension, itself a revolutionary idea proposed by Newton, and then to four dimensions, as provided by Einstein. Imagination is required to make further theoretical leaps, which might require not listening to present-day consensus.
Weinstein notes that when Crick and Watson published their seminal 1953 paper on the double helix, Nature did not need peer review to allow its publication. "It was an editor's job to figure out if it was worthy of publication." Thankfully, the editors allowed it; that paper revolutionized our understanding of molecular biology. Their work is the basis of all genetic research today."
It's indeed strange to see the parent comment being downvoted. Especially by people who know what github is.
Current academic journals are harmful for science, the same way as trying to use Roman numerals would be harmful for math. They are outdated means of communication that slows down progress.
Science needs its github, and github could easily become that with very small effort.
Eric Weinstein (for one) has been talking about this a lot and argues that it could be better to work out errors in public, instead of defaulting to consensus.
"The need for verification from others dampens the potential for imagination, which Weinstein believes to be essential for stretching beyond what is currently known to dream the unknowable. This, he argues, is how the sciences actually evolve.
Weinstein points to a 1963 Scientific American article by Paul Dirac in which the theoretical physicist discusses the discovery of a third dimension, itself a revolutionary idea proposed by Newton, and then to four dimensions, as provided by Einstein. Imagination is required to make further theoretical leaps, which might require not listening to present-day consensus.
Weinstein notes that when Crick and Watson published their seminal 1953 paper on the double helix, Nature did not need peer review to allow its publication. "It was an editor's job to figure out if it was worthy of publication." Thankfully, the editors allowed it; that paper revolutionized our understanding of molecular biology. Their work is the basis of all genetic research today."
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/eric-weinstein-sc...