Calling it peer review suggests gatekeeping. I suggest no gatekeepind just let any academic post a review, and maybe upvote/downvote and let crowdsourcing handle the rest.
Calling it peer review suggests gatekeeping. I suggest no gatekeepind just let any academic post a review, and maybe upvote/downvote and let crowdsourcing handle the rest.
While I appreciate no gatekeeping, the other side of the coin is gatekeeping via bots (vote manipulation).
Something like rotten tomatoes could be useful. Have a list of "verified" users (critic score) in a separate voting column as anon users (audience score).
This will often serve useful in highly controversial situations to parse common narratives.
I'm not sure anonymous users should be able to join. Arxiv's system of only allowing academic users seems fine for this, although exceptions could be made for industry researchers.
I meant "anonymous" to mean general public rather than truly anonymous. Could still have id requirements.
"Academic" in your example requires a vague umbrella which often is unenforceable in decentralized systems.