（3）爱因斯坦1905年奇迹年，直接得益于“没有事实上的‘同行评议’”
（3-1）Correspondence
Published: 13 November 2003
How genius can smooth the road to publication
John Maddox
Nature volume 426, page119(2003)Cite this article
   
https://www.nature.com/articles/426119b.pdf
  
However, when reconciling these events with the current peer-review system, it is worth noting that none of Einstein’s papers were sent to reviewers. The decision to publish was made exclusively by either the editor in chief, Max Planck, or the co-editor, Wilhelm Wien — both ‘peers’ beyond doubt who were later to win the Nobel prize in physics. The importance of these editorial judgements is underlined by the decision of UNESCO to declare 2005 the World Year of Physics to celebrate the centenary of Einstein’s ‘miraculous’ year.
  
（3-2）施郁，2016-08-01，爱因斯坦被拒授过博士学位和副教授职位吗？
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-4395-993806.html
    全部发表在Annalen der Physik。当时该刊拒稿率只有百分之几。

个案是不足于说明一个政策的好坏的。我个人认为同行评议还是利大于弊。

回复@赵斌：总体上看，同行评议：
（1）阻碍高创新；
（2）鼓励中等以下的小微创新。
   
2019-09-25，近年关于“同行评议”的大数据实证研究论文（汇集）
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1199462.html

回复@戴苏斌：请您不要这样！