[nickpsecurity]

I'll add the amount should be enough to cover at least a cursory review. A full review would be better. I just don't want to price out small players.

The papers could also be categorized as unreviewed, quick check, fully reviewed, or fully reproduced. They could pay for this to be done or verified. Then, we have a reputational problem to deal with on the reviewer side.

[loglog]

I don't know about CS, but in mathematics the vast majority of researchers would not have enough funding to pay for a good quality full review of their articles. The peer review system mostly runs on good will.

[slashdave]

> I'll add the amount should be enough to cover at least a cursory review.

You might be vastly underestimating the cost of such a feature

[nickpsecurity]

I'm assuming it cost somewhere between no review and a thorough one. Past that, I assume nothing. Pay reviewers per review or per hour like other consultants. Groups like Arxiv would, for a smaller fee, verify the reviewer's credentials and that the review happened.

That's if anyone wants the publishing to be closer to thr scientific method. Arxiv themselves might not attempt all of that. We can still hope for volunteers to review papers in a field with little, peer review. I just don't think we can call most of that science anymore.