zlacker

Integrate them peer review process and you’ve got a disrupter

>>gnarlo+(OP)
Right? This is kind of the dream.

>>gnarlo+(OP)
Peer review should be disrupted, but doing peer review via social media is not the way to go.

>>gnarlo+(OP)
Calling 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.

>>naaski+pc
While 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.

>>mlpokn+2c
Has 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.

>>staple+Pf
I'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.

>>mlpokn+2c
It'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.