Reputable quality bar isn't the right metric. Quality is a better metric. To the extent it can be estimated, impact is another. Neither of these require journals specifically.
A different way to look at this is to question what "old slop" actually means.
The reason not to publish in Nature is that it might take a long time to get everything right in the paper to publish, to the point it takes years to get it read. Publishing fewer results faster spreads the results faster.
A different way to not require journals to be the arbiters of quality is to let the truth itself be the arbiter of quality instead of designate gatekeepers.
1. Open peer-review to anyone interested instead of only select few. HN is an example of this phenomenon but not for novelty specifically.
2. Permit publication of papers that are shorter for results to spread faster. AI papers are a good example of this phenomenon.
Peer-review can also occur from non-gatekeepers, from non-experts. You realize you posted this on a massively open and public publication system, right?
Non-experts sometimes bring perspectives that gatekeepers are blind to.
I built something like this but it didn't get users. Replying to an author for the valuable info they posted would pay the author and it also accepted public payments.
An AI or search engine that identified the value of a contribution and paid the author directly from advertising money based on query traffic could be a way to solve this.
I can imagine that adoption was hard to achieve gradually. I figure you'd need a bunch of universities to get together and all at once say to the publishers:
> The only way we'll pay you ever again is through {the protocol}, deal with it.
If people just sought out and participated in better incentive alignment under the expectation that things would be better if only everybody did so... Well then things would already be better and we wouldn't be dreaming these dreams in the first place.
Working on understanding why this thread gets hundreds of comments and upvotes while threads with the same name posted by other users don't get this much engagement.
Can you share more about why it's hard to submit the preprint for review unless its first published somewhere? Wouldn't you be able to submit the preprint directly to whichever conference or journal you want it published in?
For a different way to receive feedback for a preprint consider [url-redacted]. I created it partly out of frustration for the time it takes to publish smaller work. Although not currently implemented, I can provide a version that keeps review comments private.
> share any non-mainstream thought and your replies are full of haters
This may be a failure of the platform protocol. I wish the protocol was: [phrase-redacted]. Grok ranking people's posts based on truth will be interesting.
