Dan Goodman on Nostr: thanks for that, it's very clear now. 👍 So what's your reasoning for saying that ...

thanks for that, it's very clear now. 👍

So what's your reasoning for saying that disinterested evaluation is better than comments from someone with an interest? That runs counter to my intuition. I can see that from the point of view of an editor who wants safe content for their product it might make sense, but from the point of view as a scientist who wants to be challenged, I want to hear precisely the views of those who are passionate about it. Probably the most interesting paper that will actually change things is going to be one that provokes intense disagreement from readers with some hating it and some loving it. Such a paper is unlikely to pass a filter of a disinterested observer.

And I want all this highly interested discussion to be open so that I can actually read the reasons, and also so that I can decide for myself whose views and reviews I trust, and who to turn to for certain sorts of commentary. And I don't want any of this codified into metrics that determine people's career success chances because that distorts everything and encourages evasion and even fraud.

I don't think what I'm suggesting has been tried, so it's an experiment. But actually, I don't think what you'd like has been tried either, or at least not much and not until recently. We should do both. Actually that's all I really want, a level playing field for different ways of doing science, and not a monoculture led by commercial interests that in my view seriously distorts science and slows progress.