QOTO + PEER REVIEW = MODERATOR/GATEKEEPERS?
.
Peer review is at the heart of the processes of scientific journals and all of science.
.
Do we not all understand that peer review is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won?
.
The peer review process has gatekeepers, not unlike our QOTO moderators -- an online fact-of-life full of problems but the least worst option we have.
.
The most important question with QOTO moderator review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it when stumbling blocks arise.
.
A. A specific QOTO issue or
problem has been clearly
identified: Moderators can't
currently read or prevent
advertisements in foreign
languages.
.
B. A QOTO community vote
rejected a rule proposed to
address the problem.
.
C. What next? What can
QOTO do -- what are we
willing and able to do -- to
mitigate harm caused by
doing nothing in response
to a clearly identified
problem?
.
Moderator/gatekeeper review is a flawed process; but it is likely to remain central to QOTO because there is no obvious alternative,
.
Going forward, QOTO will grow by learning lessons the hard way, right? And QOTO needs to figure out to do better, right?
.
NOTE: This post paraphrases Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):178-82. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178. PMID: 16574968; PMCID: PMC1420798; see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

.
QOTO = Question Others to Teach Ourselves?