Would it make sense to build something like this on the top of some already existing solution? For example, to put the articles themselves on arXiv, and only have the separate infrastructure for highlighting the best contributions, providing specialized discussion, or whatever you think would be the most important added value.
That way, even if things go wrong (prior probability: I think high enough), the articles would still remain on arXiv.
(To be more precise, I wouldn’t make arXiv mandatory, but rather the default option; you could post the content anywhere, and just provide the link. Division of labor, don’t reinvent the wheel, et cetera.)
YES—I was going to say this, and Ithink an overlay journal would be an excellent idea. The key benefit to authors would be useful peer review and promotion of their work. The question is if people would use it—and I have no idea on that front.
Would it make sense to build something like this on the top of some already existing solution? For example, to put the articles themselves on arXiv, and only have the separate infrastructure for highlighting the best contributions, providing specialized discussion, or whatever you think would be the most important added value.
That way, even if things go wrong (prior probability: I think high enough), the articles would still remain on arXiv.
(To be more precise, I wouldn’t make arXiv mandatory, but rather the default option; you could post the content anywhere, and just provide the link. Division of labor, don’t reinvent the wheel, et cetera.)
(the term for this is overlay journal)
YES—I was going to say this, and Ithink an overlay journal would be an excellent idea. The key benefit to authors would be useful peer review and promotion of their work. The question is if people would use it—and I have no idea on that front.