I’d be curious about if you’ve found any ’systematic bias’ in internet discussion towards either a bubble-effect of agreement or a ’screed-effect’ of disparagement.

It could be a ripe way of opening up thinking and discussion about the extent to which blind peer reviewing also has its own built-in biases.

Instead of asking which is ‘better,’ we might be able to explore what an excellent system might be and do–so we had some meaningful yardstick for examining the existing options.

Your post is already making me think….