Real peer review has never been tried - Works in Progress

Peer review was a huge, expensive intervention. By one estimate, scientists collectively spend 15,000 years reviewing papers every year. It can take months or years for a paper to wind its way through the review system, which is a big chunk of time when people are trying to do things like cure cancer and stop climate change. And

... See more

What one wants is to be able to talk with a diverse club of smart peo­ple, arrange to do short one-​​off research projects and sim­u­la­tions, pub­lish papers or cap­ture intel­lec­tual prop­erty quickly and eas­ily, and move on to another con­ver­sa­tion. Quickly. Eas­ily. For a liv­ing. Can’t do that in indus­try. Can’t do that in the Acad­emy. Y

... See more

The key reason I think a DAO here could be useful is because so much labor is already working for free in the existing journal system while the journal charges an insane take rate + the reviewers aren’t getting much credit. A system like this might unlock some of that take rate to be redeployed into funding more research, would create a system wher... See more

Second has been the rise of open-access journals. These are journals that allow readers to access the published articles for free and instead derive most of their revenue from charging the authors Article Processing Charges. Some of the name brand journals also have a hybrid model where authors can pay to make their research open-access. And the pr... See more

Why should peer-review happen amongst a small group of people when it can happen in the public eye? People can give comments, other people can give comments about those comments, etc. Ideas can get published faster, iterated on quicker, and become more of a group commentary vs. 6 month waits.