The implications are stark. Truth and intellectual honesty can be a casualty and it is easy to imagine the effects on applied subjects such as medicine, engineering, physics and meteorology as well as on the humanities for example history, culture and literature. The health and vibrancy of our world has been suffocated by this peer-reviewed system.
Is this the reason science and everything else is at a stand-still?
I'll come back to this very interesting piece later when I have more time. In the meanwhile, i am a bit puzzled by her suggestion for an alternative in the conclusion:
(emphasis mine)
How does one chose who qualifies as a single trusted editor?
I don’t think one does qualify as a “single trusted editor”. The alternative may be something like PubMed for the other sciences. Where you can put out your findings, apparently without editing, and people can look at it themselves, using their own judgment. Then they can either try to duplicate the results or not, as they choose. This way we don’t have to wait for the old school to all die out before paradigm change.
Other sciences have arXiv...