The Chronicle has a short summary, "Let's Stop Publishing Research Papers" of a paper making a version of that argument (maybe more accurately "let's start supplementing research papers more rigorously"?).
Don't these people go to conferences? Isn't that the point of said conferences? Maybe my little subfield is weird in the fact that it's small enough for me to keep up with most of the major things going on - arguably not the case for everyone.
Also, I think there's something significant to be said for a plea to the scientific community to review in a timely manner, or refuse to review in a timely manner. My last paper was almost a full year in review due to people not doing reviews. Say no if you don't have the time. This wasn't the highest-impact journal in the land, but it was something well respected in the field; well enough that it should have a much faster turnover rate (and yeah, the editor wasn't particularly great, but there can sometimes be some room for improvement in our collegial contributions).
I should probably just be grateful that I'm not working on stuff that changes on a monthly basis.
8 hours ago