Gabriel Power writes:
I don’t recall that you addressed this point in your posts on post-publication peer review. Who would be allowed to post reviews of a paper? Anyone? Only researchers? Only experts? Science is not a democracy. A study is not valid because a majority of people think it is. One correct assessment should trump ten incorrect assessments. In other words, how do we qualify the tradeoff between “fewer, deeper reviews” and “many, shallower reviews”? When does the former work best? The latter?
I think everyone should be allowed to post reviews. But this does raise the question of what to do if trolls start to invade. I guess we can address this problem when we get that far. Right now, the problem seems to be not enough reviews, not too many.