I've said this before... we need a open-source "(Git)Hub for Science" where anyone is allowed and encouraged to publish and continuously iterate on their 'resea

I've said this before... we need a open-source "(Git)Hub for Science" where anyone is allowed and encouraged to publish and continuously iterate on their 'research' and peer review is crowd-sourced from the community via discussion on a open forum attached to the research (the way issues are attached to a repo). Mentioning Github is triggering for some because they less about foundational open-source support these days short description: - upload and manage your data, analysis code, research 'write-up' and other supporting on the platform in revision control repository (basically using git) that the main research controls and can invite other to be editors. - platform would have electronic lab notebook features... all data/etxt/etc. generation/upload and modification is time stamped. - data tables/mini-databases and data files would be assigned unique Id's so that the data can be cross referenced in other research repo's. So calculations, etc. can reference and use revision controlled data in other repos. This could rapidly turn into a mess at scale (I'm not a DB expert) but this would be cool. - platform would have internal publishing platform for generating a 'polished presentation/manuscript' of the research: written article, iteractive notebook, slides, etc." Think of this as the polished readme or GitHub Pages of the repo, but with more features to generate really clean looking, polished copy like Authorea, Curvenote, Overleaf. - each repo would have a discussion forum like "github or gitlab issues" but with a little more functionality akin to Discourse. - the platform would also have a centralized topical discussion forum like reddit but with subreddits matching topical research areas. - users can build research collections that they follow, get update notifications, and can reference in their own research. So the system has an built-in bibliography system on steroids. - platform is free to use and access for everyone, period. - platform could be federated where platform nodes could be run by universities, companies, government labs, etc. Haven't thought this through in detail but could be done. Would provide some fault tolerance. Benefits: - research would be accessible to all... this by itself will be a radically positive enhancement. - Communication of ideas would be enhanced by provision of all data, experimental procedures, analysis code, etc. No page limits... just communicate what you think is necessary whether it is one page or two hundred pages. Science communication can also be corrected, amended, and improved over time. Most research papers have something wrong with them; few errors are ever corrected unless they are so wrong that a retraction is necessary. Even so, most papers are not retracted. By virtue of the issues and discussion forum, and the ability to edit your papers... research would have a much longer 'shelf-life' and new readers would be able ascertain whether or not a body of research is reliable/trustworthy or not. - editorial review and peer review would no longer be gating to whether or not something gets published. This removes political and scientific bias from the review process. - The concept of high impact journals would vanish... if research is awesome, it will get a lot of activity and "github stars / thumbs up", others will post their own data/research corroborating the original research and want to add to the body of research organically... just like what happens with good open-source software repos. If the research is crap to begin with, folks in the community will point out the flaws and help correct them. -It will lower the barrier to publishing null-results (tried this, didn't work) and commenting/critiquing/supporting research. We could develop a basic scoring system to 'reward' people who support research via review, critique, assistance, etc. I'm think of ways to help professors and others demonstrate their activity and helpfulness in a research community; publishing is great, but helping make other's research/science better is also highly valuable and we should develop a way to recognize that [for professorship tenure review, etc.]. my 0.02...