In the series of blog posts, I’d be looking at the existing model of academic publishing. I stumbled on this excellent paper, and this merits a thorough analysis into various issues. I’ll be adding the various excerpts from this paper and layer it with my ideas and discussion. I stumble on these conceptual papers rarely and hence it is a perfect opportunity to exercise the grey cells to take it forward.
Here’s the preamble.
Prepublication peer review should be abolished. We consider the effects that such a change will have on the social structure of science, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behaviour of individual scientists. We evaluate these changes from the perspective of epistemic consequentialism. We find that where the effects of abolishing prepublication peer review can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on presently available evidence, they are either positive or neutral. We conclude that on present evidence abolishing peer review weakly dominates the status quo.Is Peer Review a Good Idea? | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | Oxford Academic
Hang on! It will be a wonderful ride!