The whole 'pinky swear' aspect is far from ideal.

But is there an alternative that still allows most academic aspirants to participate?

> Github

Do you understand what the parent is saying? It's clearly an analogy, not a literal recommendation for all academics to use Github.

I understand, thank you for clarifying :)

My point was that academics could use Github (or something like it)

Can you write out the argument for it, or why you believe it to be a net positive change compared to the current paradigm?

> Peer review is basically Github anonymous PRs that has the author pinky swear that the code compiles and 95% of test cases pass.

It should be possible to use something like Github to *verify* "that the code compiles and 95% of test cases pass" instead of just "pinky swearing".

Based on...?

Tests and data.

I meant what is your belief that it will be successful, or even workable, based on?

The success of Github in creating software, and the success of software in advancing scientific progress.

Maybe something like nbdev.fast.ai.

In any case, it was just a thought, and likely not an original one. I would welcome it if someone tried to build this and proved it can’t be done.

Thank you for the stimulating discussion!

Yes the characteristics of Github are understood.

What is the actual line of argument that demonstrates this success/usefulness/etc... can be reproduced in your envisioned system?

> I would welcome it if someone tried to build this and proved it can’t be done.

It's impossible to prove a negative, so this doesn't make sense. Did you mistype?