Reviewing is dead.
I just read some ICLR reviews. Absolutely junk. No insight. Written by humans, but could have been written by a chatbot or teenager who had read a few dozen reviews.
Why do we think this is useful? Only 5% (if that!) of the community has worthwhile opinions.
a good review from a smart person is great but nothing hits quite like a bad review from an idiot
And on top of that no discussions. Surprising thing is ACs not encouraging the reviewers to initiate any discussions.
I've never, personally, had any direct utility from traditional academic peer review for my scientific work.
I've never used that peer review as any kind of signal or credential in judging a paper or deciding whether to read it.
Nearly all the papers I read are preprints.
