Accepted by whom? Peer-reviewed by whom?
I guess these little questions are what this article is really about.
I guess these little questions are what this article is really about.
Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers.
The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment.
The cultural/social question you might ask today is "why (keep) them?".
At which point people will naturally ask you to make a strong case for "why not them?".
Huh? We're about six decades past that moment.
What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.
And you don't know how the peer-review system works?
Just a hunch but Claude saying your work is "PhD level" does not count
peer(X, 0) :- founding_peer(X).
electorate(T, count<Y>) :- peer(Y, T).
support(X, T, count<Y>) :- candidate(X), peer(Y, T), recognizes(Y, X, T+1).
peer(X, T+1) :- support(X, T, Votes), electorate(T, Total), 2 * Votes > Total.