# Peer review has failed as an institution Let’s be clear that the words “peer review” have baggage that comes from outside the words themselves. You hear ‘peer review’ and think ‘oh this is legit because other scientists read it’ which is technically true. But nobody has any idea if they would actually consider the people who reviewed the paper to be actual peers. One solution to this might be [[True Peer Peer Review]]. [[Want to See My Data? I Thought We Were Friends]] gives a good highlight of the problems, but the solutions are all incremental steps away from an inadequate equilibrium. It doesn’t address the meta-problem that there isn’t [[Slack - concept]] in the system. [[Most institutions have become cancerous]]. ### Related * [[Peer review doesn’t catch duplications]] * [[Lets just get rid of peer review - article]] * [[The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation]] * [[The peer review and citation system incentivizes people to work on things that other people think is interesting]] * [[Is peer review a good idea - paper]] * [[Problems With Peer Review And Alternatives]] * [[Academics are incentivized to do peer-reviewed publishable work]] * [[Three myths about scientific peer review]] * [[Peer Review- Rodney Brooks]] * [[Goodhart's Law]] <!-- #stub --> [Web URL for this note](http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Peer+review+has+failed+as+an+institution) [Comment on this note](http://via.hypothes.is/http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Peer+review+has+failed+as+an+institution)