The whiteboard from our discussion of what should be part of our ideal peer-review system:

• continuous
• community rejection—the “quack” button
• “reputation” for reviewing quality, meta-reviews
• a review is a citable object (that therefore can be peer-reviewed)
• scoring:
• different levels of depth: review (continuum & content) vs. reader score
• commenting: no score assigned
• anchored reviewing (line #/annotation): can review pieces of an article
• notification after revision, old versions marked as deprecated
• versioning: what is the user interface to prevent confusion about the timeline?
• private review possible
>comment as real person or pseudonym?
• comments tied to a single account
• conflict of interest for scored reviews