Certainly the current system can be gamed, and is, and the complaints about problems with bibliometrics about 10 seconds after the first one was published.<p>But the argument is that &quot;giving other researchers the ability to rate ... [would work] just as well as this journal reputation system&quot;.<p>My question is, simply, why should I believe this?<p>Bibliometrics often look at citations. Citations are, yes, a marker of popularity and social connections, but <i>also</i> have certain scholastic requirements. Editors and reviewers can and do point out missing references or highlight too many irrelevant self-citations. This is a type of moderation system. Imperfect certainly, but it does provide some grounding.<p>Also, it&#x27;s not like the scientific publication system only contains original research papers. Review papers fill a curational role, with the advantage of a single voice (even if from co-authors) making the comparisons, so I at least have a relatively constant baseline.