As the article points out, the previous Einstein’s papers were not peer reviewed.
Peer review is not what the pubic and journalists think it is.
An example:
The Physical Review journals publish experimental high energy physics papers from large collaborations without review, because there is no point to it. Anyone competent to review these papers is already on the list of 400 authors.
Science is strongly specialized. Results are largely disseminated by preprint. You know if a preprint makes sense if you’re working in the field. You probably know better than whomever the editor can get to agree to review the thing.
By the time something gets published, a year has gone by and research is already building on work reported in the preprint.
Peer review is not what the pubic and journalists think it is.
An example:
The Physical Review journals publish experimental high energy physics papers from large collaborations without review, because there is no point to it. Anyone competent to review these papers is already on the list of 400 authors.
Science is strongly specialized. Results are largely disseminated by preprint. You know if a preprint makes sense if you’re working in the field. You probably know better than whomever the editor can get to agree to review the thing.
By the time something gets published, a year has gone by and research is already building on work reported in the preprint.