Theres an issue with this "one review fits all" approach. Scientific communities are often splintered into sub-communities with different views and allegiances.

Theres an issue with this "one review fits all" approach. Scientific communities are often splintered into sub-communities with different views and allegiances. The scientific community is not a set, it's a graph with different connectedness and weights. A imho better system would: * use public key crypto to give everybody a pseudonym under which they can create, sign and publish articles * a publication graph that is used both as a reference system and a review system; - a reference is a link from one article to another if it reuses and builds upon it (standing on the shoulder of giants) - a review is a link from one article to another that passes judgement on or reproduces that article (peer review) * a sentiment analysis based system that turns the review links into peer-review quality metrics * a way to delegate judgement from yourself to others that you trust in your community * a page-rank like algorithm that computes trust relative to your private key and the trust it has assigned/delegated * and most importantly: a UI that shows you a papers ranking and relevance based on YOUR personal trust graph and community