Peer review, instead of helping science stay on track, is actually retarding real progress.
Peer review is anti-innovatory because it is a process that depends on approval by exponents of the current orthodoxy. . . . Perhaps the biggest argument against the peer review of completed studies is that it simply isn’t needed. With the World Wide Web everything can be published, and the world can decide what’s important and what isn’t. This proposition strikes terror into many hearts, but with so much poor-quality science published what do we have to lose?
Phi Beta Iota: In contrast to peer review, which is corrupt and retarded in multiple aspects, peer production does work. The key can be found in transparency sharing truth and creating trust.