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

mlpoknbji 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Peer review should be disrupted, but doing peer review via social media is not the way to go.

	▲	perching_aix 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

crimsoneer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right? This is kind of the dream.

▲

naasking 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	staplers 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.