_jsmh

Many if not most of the readers are grad students. Arguably they're the people who pay that indirectly in increased tuition fees.

Reputable quality bar isn't the right metric. Quality is a better metric. To the extent it can be estimated, impact is another. Neither of these require journals specifically.

A different way to look at this is to question what "old slop" actually means.

The reason not to publish in Nature is that it might take a long time to get everything right in the paper to publish, to the point it takes years to get it read. Publishing fewer results faster spreads the results faster.

What prevents AI scrapers from continuing to scrape sites that contain a <Canary> tag but not follow the bad links?

A different way to not require journals to be the arbiters of quality is to let the truth itself be the arbiter of quality instead of designate gatekeepers.

1. Open peer-review to anyone interested instead of only select few. HN is an example of this phenomenon but not for novelty specifically.

2. Permit publication of papers that are shorter for results to spread faster. AI papers are a good example of this phenomenon.

Peer-review can also occur from non-gatekeepers, from non-experts. You realize you posted this on a massively open and public publication system, right?

Non-experts sometimes bring perspectives that gatekeepers are blind to.

I built something like this but it didn't get users. Replying to an author for the valuable info they posted would pay the author and it also accepted public payments.

An AI or search engine that identified the value of a contribution and paid the author directly from advertising money based on query traffic could be a way to solve this.

Sorry, I tried. If you want to have good things you have to use them when you first see them.

Can you share more about why it's hard to submit the preprint for review unless its first published somewhere? Wouldn't you be able to submit the preprint directly to whichever conference or journal you want it published in?

For a different way to receive feedback for a preprint consider [url-redacted]. I created it partly out of frustration for the time it takes to publish smaller work. Although not currently implemented, I can provide a version that keeps review comments private.