In its broadest form, “collective intelligence” can be seen as a collaborative approach to problem-solving, typically supported by technological tools, which allows for real-time co-ordination and mobilization of knowledge that is distributed among many individuals (Suran et al., 2021).

Scientific publications could even be augmented with technological tools that indicate how findings correspond to the broader literature or how samples should be structured for this kind of research.

Designing for diversity in the scientific collective also requires constructive spaces for deliberation, critique, and debate—discourse that is essential to knowledge-building—which support diverse participation. These spaces should be built around critiquing ideas rather than individuals, with recognized codes of conduct for respectful engagement.

Diversity needs to be deliberately engineered because biases can easily be overlooked when values and norms are embedded into contemporary society. It is necessary to review processes, such as consensus-building, information gatekeeping, and sensemaking, and establish transparent frameworks to incorporate diversity in these processes (Thapar-Björke... See more

Collective intelligence could also increase the responsiveness of evaluating new information. Emerging scientific papers typically undergo independent critique, or “peer review,” but this process is notoriously slow. During the Covid-19 pandemic, researchers collectively responded by accelerating some peer review processes and, more commonly,... See more

Third, aggregating expert discourse, that is, discussion of the evidence, can showcase how reasoned argument between scientists informs scientific knowledge. This can be as critical as the evidence itself, especially in crisis situations where action must be taken as evidence emerges. New digital tools for judgment aggregation in the civic... See more

In areas where consensus has yet to form, aggregation can advance science by exposing areas in which further evidence is needed (Minas & Jorm, 2010).

academics often cite lack of time as the main reason for declining reviews, but it takes much less time to review a manuscript (typically hours) than to produce a new piece of research (typically months). Despite the critical contribution of peer review to the scientific process, it is not incentivised in the publication structure, nor by most... See more

Communicating in terms of the “collective accumulated evidence” shifts the message toward what the best available evidence indicates.