Let me expand a little on what I see as being the main problem. Peer-review is a weapon. It can be run for hire (many peer reviewed paper did not even have a methodology section, research on the matter shows) it can also be used ill intentionally to censor.

Again, Nostr offers the possibility of reimagining the peer review system. Filtering is absolutely needed, but the mechanism should be distributed and incorruptible.

Maybe a pre-print needs to pass many community layers before it can be considered a published article. Maybe here as well aggregated trustworthiness can play a role over time. Maybe a degree of randomization is needed.Maybe we should reconsider what a published paper is for….

Is it to achieve status via publication? Is it to meet quota and maintain position in a research center or university? Is it to serve the needs of the sponsor? (big pharma I am looking at you)

Or should a published paper be about moving forward collectively and advertise the people doing the work so that they can get funded? About helping fostering a spirit of collaboration where verification rewards the individual, the research and the collective effort.

The web was born out of the desire of collaboration amongst particle physicists. Tim and the people who helped him at CERN (even if he claims otherwise, nobody helped him and ooops the archive was lost and he needed to rebuild it manually) wanted to improve collaboration, decentralize research. But, everything was victim of governmental funding, and lack of belief.

The truth is that W3C is probably been hijacked by Google (possibly one of the reasons Tim left). The web is corrupted to the core… Nostr offers the potential of fixing that.