What kind of prestige? Peer review is anonymous unpaid work.

A good review does not merely check the correctness of logical arguments, it gives suggestions for the exposition, citing the correct references, putting everything in the right context, etc.

▲

bananaflag 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What kind of prestige? Peer review is anonymous unpaid work.

Prestige to the reviewed, not to the reviewer.

▲

fasterik 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All of the reasons you listed for peer review are valid. The broader point is that peer review can happen outside of academic journals, and nobody has an incentive to submit to them who isn't trying to play the academic prestige game. For a significant example, see the history of Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture.

	▲	a57721 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> journals are not the arbiter of truth and getting published in them is something only academics have an incentive to do Good, I just wanted to point out that peer review isn't primarily an arbitrage of truth, it is also to make sure the exposition is nice to read. When you get a reviewer who actually cares, you receive lots of feedback that isn't related to the correctness of Lemma 3.14.15 and stuff like that.