I’ve become increasingly skeptical of the peer review system—not because the intention behind it is bad, but because of the complicated world in which it’s embedded. On paper, the process sounds idealistic: submit your research, get anonymous feedback, revise, and resubmit. But in practice, it’s a messy system shaped by invisible games, ambiguous standards, and enormous variability in what counts as “good” science.

In this episode, I reflect on what it feels like to send work off into a black box—where editorial decisions are shaped by uncertainty, disagreement, and sometimes just luck. We talk about how reviewers often don’t agree, how “A-level” work depends on who’s judging it, and how real people’s careers and livelihoods are affected by invisible rules no one fully understands.

I still believe in the value of careful research. But I also think we need to get honest about the cost—emotional, intellectual, and financial—of playing the current game. And maybe, just maybe, we need to imagine a better system.