At the meeting “The future of scholarly scientific communication” opinions were divided about how to fix peer review. Should we abolish it, publish everything and let the world decide if it’s good science? Or do we need journals and editors to pre-select good quality work for us?
In all these discussions, the view of graduate students and early career researchers was somewhat missing. Anyone who wants to be hired as a lecturer after finishing the PhD has to provide a track record of published papers. The competition is fierce.
So what do they do?
Publish quickly and don’t waste time on uploading replication data and code, just rewrite the paper according to what the reviewer wants, and hope it goes through the process quick enough to be on your CV for the job market.
If the next cohort of researchers rejects the current peer review system as “rubbish” and strives for reproducible, high quality work that may take years, they may simply never make a career. There are no incentives for young researchers to bring about a big change in the peer review system. But if they won’t do it, who will?