Unless you're suggesting they should change the existing qualification criteria to accommodate a group unwilling to play by the same rules as everyone else, I'm not sure why that's relevant.
I run this journal that you've never heard of that might interest you. I'd also like to invite you to be an editor, you can put it on your CV of course ...
And just to spell it out, since it looks like HackerNews is flooded by people who are new to science these days: even if a result doesn't come with a price, scholarly peer review is the norm across all of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
Being normal doesn't necessarily mean it isn't gatekeeping- gatekeeping is also quite "normal" in many cases.
That being said, I think there needs to be some standard, and peer review seems like the best we have come up with. But is the current status quo for scientific publication the best we can do? I think that is an open question and we should be able to openly discuss alternatives.
"Is it the best we can do?" is a completely different question from "given that it's the current standard, should it be applied to this new claim that is happening now?"
Depends. What replaces it? Does that replacement do better at keeping false claims out, or worse? Does it do better at letting true claims through, or worse?
Real true or false - which I define as correspondence (or lack thereof) with reality - does not depend on convincing people. Reality does not change when people become convinced; ideas correspond to reality whether people are convinced or not.
But perceived truth and falsehood depend on convincing people - either convincing them one by one, or else convincing some gatekeeper, whose word will convince those who accept the gatekeeper.
Instead of a committee of subject matter experts they should use a more rigorous and trustworthy standard, like passing the solution to ChatGPT with the prompt "did this win?"
> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers.
What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.
I want to ensure your PhD is actually from somebody who is acknowledged in the system of peers I bought into, before I want to risk wasting more of my time defining and explain while guessing at your ability to parse and understand them.
