@elduvelle @kofanchen @albertcardona great example! I don't think we can catch all problems before publication and even if we could the cost would be crippling. I think we'd need hundreds of reviewers per paper, each given weeks to months of time to review. We'd never get anything done. And it wouldn't even work because some problems only become apparent when you try to use results to push onwards, which we wouldn't be doing if we were spending all our time reviewing. I totally agree that fields can get sidetracked for years by an impressive sounding result with flaws. My point is that we should make it easier for those flaws to become visible by increasing transparency and doing post publication review, rather than pinning our hopes on an - in my view doomed - attempt to stop it from ever being published in the first place.