Same in some parts of astrophysics. The real peer review is social, you review when you cite so to speak, if you cite garbage then your work turn into garbage, so.... journal peer review is just an after-thought to collect points for funding and hiring bodies, it is not the real validation of research.
Not to mention I know examples of respected journals in the field letting total crap through (not opinion, total misapplication of statistical theorems) so the journal stamp of approval isn't everything.
Arxiv is not ideal, but I refuse to think going back to journals as gatekeeper is a step forwards. That would be a step backwards. Some sort of distributed social network peer review of arxiv papers, and having points scored there that count as the review for for papers for funding bodies etc would probably be best. The journal model is outdated and charging too much money to provide little value (I mean, they just coordinate the review process, a piece of software could do the same coordination).
Not to mention I know examples of respected journals in the field letting total crap through (not opinion, total misapplication of statistical theorems) so the journal stamp of approval isn't everything.
Arxiv is not ideal, but I refuse to think going back to journals as gatekeeper is a step forwards. That would be a step backwards. Some sort of distributed social network peer review of arxiv papers, and having points scored there that count as the review for for papers for funding bodies etc would probably be best. The journal model is outdated and charging too much money to provide little value (I mean, they just coordinate the review process, a piece of software could do the same coordination).