I've never understood why a wikipedia or github style publishing platform doesn't exist for research papers yet. Why do we ascribe reputation to the journals th

I've never understood why a wikipedia or github style publishing platform doesn't exist for research papers yet. Why do we ascribe reputation to the journals themselves? Is it the journals or is it the academics who participate in the journal who matter? Also why does reputation even matter really? Wouldn't an open source model make more sense where anyone can offer feedback and comments would be public? Wouldn't it make more sense to have all academics and even non-academics from around the world offer review? Generally speaking there's a right answer, whether it's a hard science where equations are likely involved and can be validated, or a soft science where you can mostly focus on validating the process and analysis. Even in the arts where it might be a bit more subjective. If anything given the reproducibility crisis in modern science, I would say the current model as failed and deserves no reputation at all. This reminds me of this: https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/we-need-a-github-for-academic-research.html https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/we-need-a-github-for-ac... If anything such a platform would be incredibly valuable in that academics can also create profiles on them and have an additional CV of their activity in contributing back to their field. This can be used as a real additional metric towards providing someone tenure or getting lab positions.