[abrichr]

> 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".

[MichaelZuo]

Based on...?

[abrichr]

Tests and data.

[MichaelZuo]

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

[abrichr]

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!

[MichaelZuo]

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?