Science magazine has an online feature asking readers to send their ideas on how they will be communicating science to readers in the next fifty years. Now, they gave me only 250 words to vent all my frustration, so I have not done so. But, I thought this might be a good platform to introduce my feelings. Of course, a lot of what I feel is already on the blog, so I will only touch upon the essentials here and write about what I wish would be true fifty years from now. So, to begin with let me state as clearly as possible for me, what I think is wrong with the system we have right now: Should peer-review reflect the consensus view? Now this is a contentious issue that needs to be addressed. This issue also lies at the heart of the entire debate. On one hand, crackpot theories like the ‘gyre theory’ should ideally be weeded out. But then again, history is rife with cases of people thinking ahead of their time, most recent example being...