Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
Has the academic review process become excessive? In a setting where editors cannot distinguish significant flaws from mere blemishes, reviewers recommend the repair of blemishes in order to acquire reputations for high skill. In equilibrium, editors accede to reviewer insistence upon such cosmetic surgery. If blemishes are sometimes unremovable, demands for repair sometimes block good papers from publication. This implies a social value to active editing. Reviewer signal-jamming may especially suppress innovative research and research designed to verify others' findings. This perspective strongly suggests that the growth of the review process is harmful. I therefore offer tentative proposals for reform.