Has the Scientific Paper Had Its Day?

I had more than 50 years publishing scientific papers and editing submitted material. It, consequently, looks to me like the end of an era, to see suggestions that the days of 'the paper' might be numbered (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/apr/11/the-big-idea-should-we-get-rid-of-the-scientific-paper). At the start of my career, The 'peer-reviewed' (approved by at least 2 'experts') paper was the old 'gold standard' of science. Publishing material in conference proceedings (and, later, in 'rapid communications') was just a method of putting less-regarded material in the public domain. Submission of material for peer-review, via 'snail mail' in the earliest days, was very 'clunky'. It has, however, been greatly speeded by electronic communications (unfortunately, one can't add now to one's stamp collection). Speeding up the dissemination of scientific results was very evident in the recent Covid19 pandemic. Most media accounts contained the mantra 'not yet peer-reviewed'. I agree that some people probably did massage their data (removing outliers etc), to make their material more acceptable to particular journals. The eventual hierarchies of journals also became an issue (all journals are equal but some more equal than others?). Massaging data was not encouraged, however, in the circles where I moved. It's also true that publishing negative findings and corrections was difficult/impossible in the traditional system. Certainly, many of the 'older' papers had, what are now recognised, as somewhat dodgy statistical analyses. Peer-reviewed papers and their citations (the average number is actually zero) were, however, the basis of scientific esteem, recruitment and 'promotability'. The article suggests one solution might be replacing the scientific paper with an electronic 'notebook', in which all the worker's generated data would be freely available. This raises a number of questions. What constitutes the scientist's data? Much research is collaborative. Who owns the data in the grant-holder/employed worker dichotomy? Free access to all data might not go down well with funding agencies, especially if commercially or ethically-sensitive data is generated. Data in an 'electronic notebook' might well be more prone to massage than the paper equivalents. Publication, in a prestigious journal, was often a trigger for media interest. It's suspected that, in this proposed 'brave new world', the publicity arms of major Universities/large companies would play ever increasingly larger roles in determining what research reaches public attention. Science also often seems to be constantly 're-creating the wheel' (replication is part of science). It would be very unfortunate (there are already signs of this happening), if older publications 'disappeared into a black hole' rather than being added to by new findings. How also would the equivalent of citations be calculated for promotion etc? Change has to happen/is happening but some of these issues should be resolved by scientific bodies, rather than being simply left to evolve.