I don't get the positive reactions. This sounds like: let's do to scientific publishing what social media have done to society. And that's make it worse. For fistful of dollars.
- Academics advance based on your publication score. They will avoid your platform if it doesn't help them get grants or tenure. If they've got it, they will avoid it even more.
- Only a few people will put time in reviewing and handing out points, where unfortunately reviewing means: three seconds of scanning and gut feeling. You won't be able to keep even the most blatantly fraudulent papers out.
- There will be a few good articles that score well, and you'll defend your platform by pointing that out, but below that there will be a mass of highly rated papers that don't deserve it. They'll be there because a group with an agenda put them there, or because groups actively keep papers of "competitors" down.
- As said by others: the "average citizen" isn't part of this. Never has been, and doesn't need to. Open Access is for fellow scientists and very specialized citizens.
- "With over 10,000 academic journals, it’s impossible for the lay public to track which journals are reputable and which are not." That's not true. Most researchers only look in a small number of journals and can distinguish wheat from chaff. But you won't have 10k journals: you're aiming at millions of reviewers.
- Why use voting by god-knows-whom if you can use the same "trust" mechanism that's used today: citations? Because you'll only become a record keeper. There won't be a need to fund your system.
- Academics advance based on your publication score. They will avoid your platform if it doesn't help them get grants or tenure. If they've got it, they will avoid it even more.
- Only a few people will put time in reviewing and handing out points, where unfortunately reviewing means: three seconds of scanning and gut feeling. You won't be able to keep even the most blatantly fraudulent papers out.
- There will be a few good articles that score well, and you'll defend your platform by pointing that out, but below that there will be a mass of highly rated papers that don't deserve it. They'll be there because a group with an agenda put them there, or because groups actively keep papers of "competitors" down.
- As said by others: the "average citizen" isn't part of this. Never has been, and doesn't need to. Open Access is for fellow scientists and very specialized citizens.
- "With over 10,000 academic journals, it’s impossible for the lay public to track which journals are reputable and which are not." That's not true. Most researchers only look in a small number of journals and can distinguish wheat from chaff. But you won't have 10k journals: you're aiming at millions of reviewers.
- Why use voting by god-knows-whom if you can use the same "trust" mechanism that's used today: citations? Because you'll only become a record keeper. There won't be a need to fund your system.