My quick response to the Atlas critique

I'm waiting on an eye appointment (bifocals?) so this is hurried ... I've read Zetland's interview with Atlas (see my previous post) and I think we may be expecting too much from peer review. The reviewer's job is not to make sure a paper is 100% correct, but to make sure the most basic flaws are avoided. Reviewers are free labor and should only be expected to deal with the stuff they truly understand. They don't have time to read a stack of background papers before tackling their review piece. As such, readers of published papers should be critical and skeptical of what they are reading.

As such, journals should be a conversation about research and each journal article should not be considered the final word. More comments and replies should be published. I've been on both sides of article comments and think important points were made in each comment/reply.

Appointment time ...