[spacefearing]

Sounds like we need better heuristics. It doesn't make sense to ignore research papers based on their origin.

Each paper should be evaluated on its merits. A system with submission, voting, and comments (HN/reddit) is a good way to filter the wheat from the chaff. It's hard to believe this basic technology hasn't reached the scientific fields.

[ar0]

They have. It's called "peer review". It is just that peer review is a slow process, so it doesn't really work in a fast-moving crisis environment.

Part of peer review being a slow process may be fixable (although it is difficult to compel unpaid, volunteering reviewers to adhere to strict deadlines), but part of peer review being a slow process is specifically that if you do not want to rely on heuristics such as author credentials you need to take the time to really analyze a paper to avoid falling into the traps mentioned in the original article (confirmation bias, being misled by an authoritative tone etc.). And HN/Reddit votes IMHO are definitely not a good example of avoiding any of these.

[eloisant]

Voting doesn't ensure that the most accurate comment/submission will show up on top, instead a wrong but popular claim (as "many people agree with it") can easily get to the top.

That happens all the time on HN and Reddit.