[egjerlow]

> If a paper deserves a serious comment, I think the proper format for that is another paper.

That's the thing, though - speaking as a former academic, the reaction when you see a paper that needs serious commenting is mostly "I'll just ignore this paper, since it has these issues", and you continue working on your own stuff - which again is because of the need for citations. If comments had larger effects on your career, they would be worthwhile making. I would guess the effect would be less papers and more 'collaborative science' where you start from a paper and either suggest improvements or improve it / replicate it yourself. I don't see the current proliferation of papers to be a good thing.

As for the worry that there will be too many 'laymen' doing the commenting, there could (as suggested elsewhere) be a verification process - i.e. there could be a 'Verified Ph.D.' (or some other measure of merit) comment section in addition to the 'layman' section.

There could also be a 'replication' section, where replication efforts will be rewarded - possibly by giving the replications some fraction of the paper's total 'reputation'.

In short: If comments are made to really count for scientists, I think there will be a more healthy scientific process going on. Viewing a paper as an evolving thing is IMO more in line with how science does work anyway - a result should be replicated before it's accepted, which is not the case now.