AI 中文总结
研究指出期刊承担多项任务却效果不佳，提议将传播与认证分离，作者存论文于开放存档，通过署名公开评论认证，论文可版本控制、读者可分叉，整合各部分成取代期刊的平台并回应反对意见。
AI 中文摘要
期刊是一种17世纪的技术，却要同时承担四项现代任务：传播研究成果、认证其质量、分配学术关注度以及给予职业认可。但它在这些方面都做得不好。预发表同行评审缓慢、可靠性低、明显偏向知名作者和机构且成本高昂，而其消耗的评审精力大多花在无关紧要的工作上。我们认为这些并非需修补的缺陷，而是将传播与认证捆绑在单一受限行为中的后果，我们提议将它们分开。在该提议下，作者将论文存入开放存档；认证在存档后通过署名且可点赞或点踩的公开评论持续进行，作者可回复；论文是版本受控对象，任何合格读者都可分叉，这样一个想法的传承以及由此产生的认可会自动记录。各个组成部分都并非臆想，它们在学术生态系统中都已存在。这里的贡献在于论证将它们整合到一个取代而非补充期刊的单一平台既可行又更可取，并回应任何此类观点都必须面对的反对意见，如参与度低、实名的寒蝉效应、认证信号的丧失以及关注度的非精英主义分配。
英文摘要
The journal is a seventeenth-century technology asked to do four modern jobs at once: disseminate results, certify their quality, allocate scholarly attention, and confer career credit. It does none of them well. Pre-publication peer review is slow, only weakly reliable, demonstrably biased toward established authors and institutions, and expensive, while the reviewing effort it consumes is spent largely on work that will never matter. We argue that these are not defects to be patched but consequences of bundling dissemination and certification into a single gated act, and we propose unbundling them. Under the proposal, authors deposit papers in an open archive; certification happens \emph{after} deposit, continuously, through attributed and up- or down-voted public commentary to which authors may reply; and papers are version-controlled objects that any qualified reader may \emph{fork}, so that the lineage of an idea -- and hence the credit for it -- is recorded automatically. None of the individual components is speculative: each already exists somewhere in the scholarly ecosystem. The contribution here is to argue that assembling them into a single venue that \emph{replaces} rather than supplements the journal is both feasible and preferable, and to confront the objections -- sparse participation, the chilling effect of real names, the loss of the certification signal, and the non-meritocratic distribution of attention -- that any honest version of the argument must answer.
