>>13264841With some even more liberal form of arXiv.
No mods but some ai porn remover maybe.
No end to the discussions. You can modify the ammount of comments you want to see. Only from some reviewers with relevant degrees (we both probably know that this alone will not guarantee the quality of the comments, but even if it were them alone allowed to comment, it would already be better than the modern peer-review, because now they have to do it secretly, for otherwise it would be too much embarrassing for them (they never confess that they may have no specialists in the subject, for example) so they should be forced to publish all the applications on their site (and only few selected ones in paper) and on that database this site I imagined would be founded. If it was some bad science, reviewers would explains why and how exactly that science was bad. So students can learn how not to do science, just like Haneke said that the best way to learn how to write sceenplays is by reading the bad ones. And so in those settings you can adjust it to your taste from strict academic digest to unmoderated imageboard with anons commenting. And that setting would be by default, because watch this board, it's relatively reasonable and surely much more fun than queer-review, where you're almost punished for doing science, like I would be shocked if I didn't know that institutions are not to help scientists, but to control them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk 
