I posted the link because I thought it was amusing - kind of recursive. But the problem is real.

I *have* been a peer reviewer (still am, occasionally), though not of a large number or variety of papers (relatively narrow specialty), and have been perplexed at times by the difficulty of reading some (I know it's politically incorrect to criticize use of the English language, but when it gets in the way of understanding what they're trying to say I have to comment on it), at others by virtual handwaves over some issues ("to be addressed in future work" doesn't always cut it for me, and I've been taken to task for that kind of comment), and very occasionally by "why is this even a paper?" moments (those are difficult - the reviewing systems usually don't have an option for "not this" or, if they do have something that can be used for that recommendation, require so much justification that it takes too much time - remember, peer reviewers don't get paid). I've also been on the funding side of a fair amount of research - so I understand the imperatives.

I think the real issue the paper brings up is that there are so many ways to publish these days, and so many publishers trying to make money off the process, that practically anything can find a place to be published. Which leaves the readers in the place of the peer reviewer, and if it's too much trouble to find a gem that's poorly written or just buried in the mass of other stuff then it will be missed. Oh well...