John Schwenkler wrote the following on facebook today and encouraged me to share it:
Idea: A website where philosophers can upload work in progress and receive feedback from other philosophers, in exchange for offering feedback of their own on others' work. (Think of it as an alternative to submitting unpolished work to journals in the hope of learning from referee reports.) It could be arranged so that you have to complete at least one report on another's paper for each report you receive on one of your own. And authors could rate the quality of these reports (insufficiently positive feedback means you'd need to try again), specify if they'd like reviewers with specific areas of expertise, etc.
Does such a thing already exist? If not, why not? And would anyone like to help try and make it happen?
I think this is a great idea. Academia.edu has something a bit similar: a new paper-workshop function where you can invite people to read and comment on your work. I've taken part in a few of them and they seem to work pretty well. However, it doesn't include author ratings of reviewers or a system requiring one to give reviewer reports to receive them. Personally, I think Schwenkler is describing a promising system of how refereeing might work at journals to speed up the process and quality of reviews--but we've already discussed that!
Anyway, what does everyone think of Schwenkler's idea? Would people take part if such a system existed?