For a system that demands ever increasing rigor and levels of proof from scientists, it remains itself remarkably untouched by the rigors of science.

Lots of bad things: slow subjective, prone to bias, por at detecting gross defects, useless at detecting fraud.

Starting with an ethical stance shouldn't be made in private; certainly continuation of the asymmetrical power relationships that exist between reviewer and reviewed.

471 papers

post entire publication prehistory

The last veil:

We may move to a system where authors and readrs can watch the peer review system on the world wide web as it happens and contribute their comments.

First attempt was th conservative: if reviewer is blind the author must be too.

Removing author's details didn't improve quality of opinion RCTs