> people with huge twitter followings [...] would dominate science Isn't that at its core the same as with scientific journals? People trust these journals to

> people with huge twitter followings [...] would dominate science Isn't that at its core the same as with scientific journals? People trust these journals to curate science in the same way you suggest twitter would come to curate science if it made the move online. 1. It's already possible to call attention to a paper through twitter, regardless of whether it's published in a journal or not. Paywalls gate-keep the content somewhat and makes sharing easier, but that's a minor side effect of a very broken system. 2. Papers (and involved data) being available on public platforms like github that already have mechanisms for reporting and tracking issues as well as built-in review tools, in githubs case even a separate discussion feature now, would allow for much quicker discussion critizising bad methodology. 3. Working with a VCS like git would automatically make it clear who wrote, edited or removed what.