Looks similar to the failed project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_of_Science .
> Here other scholars who have enough reputation in any of the fields you tagged the paper with can see the draft and offer feedback on it.
Speaking for myself, I don't trawl through preprint servers looking for papers to review.
As it is, editors have a hard time getting people to review, and even after agreeing to review, to get the review back in reasonable time.
> This system gives scholars an enormous amount of control over who they solicit feedback from.
How does it handle peer review rings, where authors collude with reviewers to get bogus positive reviews? This is already an issue now.
> It gives reviewers an incentive to give solid, constructive review feedback - and rewards good reviewers for their efforts with recognition of their contributions.
It offers reviewers an incentive to write a review that the paper author likes. I expect if reviewer writes "this paper duplicates work by Penzias & Wilson (1965) and offers nothing new - reject" then the author will reject it. While "Fix the typo on page 4, otherwise, go ahead and publish" will be accepted - even if the paper really is a waste of time.
It's a lot easier to get surface-level proofreading responses than substantive domain-specific responses.
> Down voters will be strongly encouraged to post a response explaining their downvote.
Why aren't up voters strongly encouraged to post a response explaining their upvote? Why should upvotes not be equally visible?
What's the negative consequence should someone not provide a response?
> It is not a pre-print server. It is an attempt to replace the journal system with something open to its core, scholar lead, and collectively managed by the scholar community.
Any reason to not develop this as an overlay journal on top of existing pre-print servers? Thus reducing a lot of the costs?
Why would anyone use this system given PubPeer, and PeerJ, and eLife, and overlay journals, and Publons, and all of the other attempts at breaking the current system, why would someone choose this one?
> Here other scholars who have enough reputation in any of the fields you tagged the paper with can see the draft and offer feedback on it.
Speaking for myself, I don't trawl through preprint servers looking for papers to review.
As it is, editors have a hard time getting people to review, and even after agreeing to review, to get the review back in reasonable time.
> This system gives scholars an enormous amount of control over who they solicit feedback from.
How does it handle peer review rings, where authors collude with reviewers to get bogus positive reviews? This is already an issue now.
> It gives reviewers an incentive to give solid, constructive review feedback - and rewards good reviewers for their efforts with recognition of their contributions.
It offers reviewers an incentive to write a review that the paper author likes. I expect if reviewer writes "this paper duplicates work by Penzias & Wilson (1965) and offers nothing new - reject" then the author will reject it. While "Fix the typo on page 4, otherwise, go ahead and publish" will be accepted - even if the paper really is a waste of time.
It's a lot easier to get surface-level proofreading responses than substantive domain-specific responses.
> Down voters will be strongly encouraged to post a response explaining their downvote.
Why aren't up voters strongly encouraged to post a response explaining their upvote? Why should upvotes not be equally visible?
What's the negative consequence should someone not provide a response?
> It is not a pre-print server. It is an attempt to replace the journal system with something open to its core, scholar lead, and collectively managed by the scholar community.
Any reason to not develop this as an overlay journal on top of existing pre-print servers? Thus reducing a lot of the costs?
Why would anyone use this system given PubPeer, and PeerJ, and eLife, and overlay journals, and Publons, and all of the other attempts at breaking the current system, why would someone choose this one?