4 ms·
Integrate them peer review process and you’ve got a disrupter
by gnarlouse 8mo ago
Integrate them peer review process and you’ve got a disrupter
- crimsoneer 8mo agoRight? This is kind of the dream.
- mlpoknbji 8mo agoPeer review should be disrupted, but doing peer review via social media is not the way to go.
- perching_aix 8mo agoHas a bit of a leg up in that if it's only academics commenting, it would probably be way more usable than typical social media, maybe even outright good.
- verdverm 8mo agoIt's a peer review platform build on atproto tech (aiui the vision), not to be social media, though I would not be surprised if it has elements of that Peer review goes beyond the formal process, in the court of IRL. Social media is one place people talk about new research, share their evaluations and insights, and good work gets used and cited more. Arxiv has been invaluable in starting to change the process, but we need more.
- naasking 8mo agoCalling it peer review suggests gatekeeping. I suggest no gatekeepind just let any academic post a review, and maybe upvote/downvote and let crowdsourcing handle the rest.
- staplers 8mo agoWhile I appreciate no gatekeeping, the other side of the coin is gatekeeping via bots (vote manipulation). Something like rotten tomatoes could be useful. Have a list of "verified" users (critic score) in a separate voting column as anon users (audience score). This will often serve useful in highly controversial situations to parse common narratives.
- naasking 8mo agoI'm not sure anonymous users should be able to join. Arxiv's system of only allowing academic users seems fine for this, although exceptions could be made for industry researchers.
- staplers 8mo agoI meant "anonymous" to mean general public rather than truly anonymous. Could still have id requirements. "Academic" in your example requires a vague umbrella which often is unenforceable in decentralized systems.