rich1.0Redish Lab (npub16j…cknep)https://yabu.me/npub16jr6tn76pth8u36wjh0j09zmed42aue7slg8er9nw3qtl6wuh3us8cknepnjumphttps://yabu.meI assume you mean "post-publication" in the sense of post-preprint. In my experience, none of the "let's let readers provide comment/review if they want" has worked because it's really rare that people want to write the deep-dive that a good review requires. I don't know whether that is because people don't want to do the work of reading things that carefully or if they don't want to do the work of writing their thoughts down or if they don't want to put themselves on the line (even an anonymous review is putting things on the line), but people don't seem to do that. Certainly people don't do that at the scale that science requires. So, I do think we will still need "reviewers" who are requested / cajoled into doing it by editors, but I agree that there's no need for it to be pre-publication rather than post-publication. One interesting thought is that if one could get paid for being a reviewer, people might do that. (One of my recent postdocs said that this would be a job they'd like.)