Really good post. I think you've hit on the key issue, which is that peer review can be done better.
One problem is that peer review probably is done well in a lot of cases; we only hear about it when the system breaks down. From that perspective the most obvious solution is to start focusing on peer review and giving reviewers credit for the times where they do a good job. One way we're doing that is by assigning DOIs to post-publication reviews that the community decide are a valuable contribution to science. This turns reviews into citable, indexable publications in their own right. (See e.g., http://dx.doi.org/10.14322/publons.r38)
Slashdot Mirror
Disclosure: I'm the co-founder of Publons.com
Really good post. I think you've hit on the key issue, which is that peer review can be done better.
One problem is that peer review probably is done well in a lot of cases; we only hear about it when the system breaks down. From that perspective the most obvious solution is to start focusing on peer review and giving reviewers credit for the times where they do a good job. One way we're doing that is by assigning DOIs to post-publication reviews that the community decide are a valuable contribution to science. This turns reviews into citable, indexable publications in their own right. (See e.g., http://dx.doi.org/10.14322/publons.r38)