1. Issues around funding are a higher order problem with peer review only being a symptom at best (if at all). For example, Sabine talks about the issues and focuses on grants and spends 0 time on modern peer review.
2. Fraud didn't come into being because of peer review but grows with funding. The more funding the bigger the problem. Conversely the less funding the more likely proportionally the research is fraudulent or of poor quality because there's a smaller community checking the work. We know that the more funding we spend, the more research activity a field experiences. We don't have good ways to sift out fraud proactively - it takes disproportionately more work to root out fraud and bad science than it is to publish that & reap the rewards. This is true beyond academia - it's easier to spew BS than it is to explain the truth.
3. Not registering for null results has nothing to do with peer review. It's more just "hey I did this work and I'm not going to get rewarded so I'm not going to bother spending the work to publish the null result". That exists independent of the modern peer review system & even publish/perish is ancillary to this - a null result amounts to "failure" emotionally and that can be hard to deal with. That's why there's systems now to mandate pre-registration of the experiment - so that meta analysis can determine whether or not a result has actually been replicated enough to reduce the risk of p-hacking.
4. The replication crises for particle physics is a stark example how peer review is not really contributing as much. There's two schools of thought. The first is that we just follow the math and use data to refine which mathematical model to pick. The second is that we need to come up with better philosophical underpinnings for what the math is telling us. For now the first school is winning in terms of funding dollars (& results), but it's really hard to determine a priori which path is actually the one we should be following. Moreover, the orthodoxy exists independent of the peer review system (& even independent of grant proposals).
Well, then I don't know what to tell you. My point is that the contemporary peer review process is still operating under constraints that date back to the pre-internet age, and so that process could probably stand to be improved, and using the web might be part of that, and so the presence of a discord link as a citation is not necessarily something to lament. It might be part of the solution rather than the problem.
> Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review.
I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that:
> The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review) but:
> Tenure was introduced into American universities in the early 1900s in part to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of faculty members who expressed unpopular views.
Even if that were true, what does the historical development of these institutions have to do with the claim that contemporary peer review is responsible for the contemporary replication crisis?
Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review.
> Citations exist independently of peer review
To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery.
> Pick 10 random bureaucrats
I meant do you think it's possible to "shmooze [your] way onto the grant review board" without a publication record in the real world, not some counterfactual world where you have stacked the deck.
> the replication crises has many origins and isn’t just the fault of peer reviews
I didn't say it was just the fault of peer review. What I said was that peer review was "probably in no small measure responsible for [the] replication crises", and I stand by that.