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?
 
      Chikara
Chikara 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the
 All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the