I have always been skeptical of peer review and this article confirms my skepticism. Peer review has become no more than a means for monopolizing intellectual inquiry and has become no less than a form of censorship. If there should be a free market in political discourse or even in pornography in which the consumers decide what is acceptable and what is not, should not there be a free market in scientific ideas and concepts? I would like to see an unbiased study of the costs, both in dollars and human lives, peer review has inflicted on society. The hysteria of global warming, the maniacal focus on cholestrol to the exclusion of other factors and the utter refusal to consider racial differences in health and mental processes are the mere tip of the iceberg of ignorance fostered by peer review.
Peer review is unlikely to be junked entirely because, in addition to its benefits, both real and supposed, it fashions an authoritative group opinion that spreads the blame for failure and error. No organization will willingly abandon a practice that protects its individual members even if it subverts their common purpose.
Nevertheless, there is much pressure for reform of peer review. Researchers have shown it wanting in so many respects that changes seem certain. I am skeptical that anything can make more than marginal changes in the waste of so much money and talent on research of minor consequence with predictable results.