Real peer review has never been tried - Works in Progress

What one wants is to be able to talk with a diverse club of smart peo­ple, arrange to do short one-​​off research projects and sim­u­la­tions, pub­lish papers or cap­ture intel­lec­tual prop­erty quickly and eas­ily, and move on to another con­ver­sa­tion. Quickly. Eas­ily. For a liv­ing. Can’t do that in indus­try. Can’t do that in the Acad­emy. Y

... See more

There seems to be an open debate on whether the current system of peer-review actually weeds out papers correctly. This experiment re-submitted 12 already approved papers and 89% of the peer reviewers said the paper shouldn’t be published. More recently hundreds of sham papers managed to get through the process as scammers posed as guest editors.

So Sci-Hub currently exists in the state of being incredibly popular with academic researchers, and incredibly unpopular with commercial publishers.

hether the knowledge is basic science in an academic article, investment research in a Reddit thread, or investigative journalism via a new Substack — we’ll explore how to get more of it and more impact out of it.