Awesome idea! Only half-joking: something like the HN ranking algorithm could be great for that, maybe you can reach out to them if they can help (you might eve

Awesome idea! Only half-joking: something like the HN ranking algorithm could be great for that, maybe you can reach out to them if they can help (you might even try applying for YC). Some feedback: I think the division by disciplines needs to be stronger than tags - researchers are so specialized that most research even within the same discipline is often unintelligible for those specialized in a different sub-area. They need to know roughly what to expect when they go to the platform, you don't want to show physics papers to sociologists. Think of the preprint servers, they're also constrained to some disciplines (arXiv for mathematical disciplines, bioRxiv and medRxiv, SSRN for economics/social sciences...). In the bigger picture, I think moving towards such a model would be a good thing also for scientific debate in the public eyes. Going from the binary 'It's published' to 'It seems most experts in this area tend to agree with this paper's conclusions, with some important caveats' would give a much better picture of the state of our knowledge at the cutting edge, and perhaps also address the bias against negative results better than journals who pledged to do so can.