Harvard Crimson: Peer Review is better than the alternative

Here is an opinion posted at Harvard Crimson

"Proponents of open publication who point to advances such as Grigori Perelman’s recent proof of the Poincaré conjecture, which was posted online instead of submitted to a journal, fail to realize that such instances are the exception rather than the rule. True, the traditional peer review process is not perfect. It delays the flow of information, can sometimes be biased, and often unduly prioritizes the work of established, famous scientists over the work of lesser-known researchers. But it is far better than the alternative."

So far no one posted a comment on the post. It will be interesting to see if there will be any open discussion in the comments.