I am afraid that gatekeeping is partially essential and somewhat desired, as an academic you don't have time to read everything and some sort of quick signals, albeit very flawed, can be useful to stop wasting time reading crappy science. If you don't gatekeep you will get a lot of crappy papers or papers that mention the same thing and it will waste more time from people that wish to get a quick sense of the state of a topic/field from quality work. An open source voting system would be easily abused, so it will end up to be trusting a select service of peer reviewers or agencies. Especially if a paper includes a lot of experiments and figures that can be somewhat complicated or overwhelming. What do think?

Are you aware of the current efforts by researchers on Bluesky to build a new researchers platform on ATProto? (Forget the project name at the moment)<p>If not, same handle over there, I can get you in touch with them. Or hit up Boris, he knows everyone and is happy to make connections<p>There's also a full day at the upcoming conference on ATProto & scientific related things. I think they com on discourse more (?)

@criomsoneer: Check out Open Science Network (Bonfire), they are also doing interesting work in this space! <a href="https://openscience.network/" rel="nofollow">https://openscience.network/</a>

Integrate them peer review process and you’ve got a disrupter

Yes publishing is broken, but academics are the last people to jump onto platforms...they never left email. If you want to change the publishing game, turn publishing into email.