This is an important topic and yours a good contribution. However, it reads to me a bit too rosy. There is little discussion of cultural roadblocks, such as proper attribution of credit. Doing things "for science" is nice, but we live in a world with high competition for few jobs, tenure, grants, etc. all of which expect us to be able to show what we've done. I also think you need to think more about the possible negative sides of public critique: will it undermine the credibility of scientists among the general public to have peer critiques out in the open? Will unconscious bias mean that critiques about work by women and minorities be harsher and more personal (as they are in business) and out in the open? That could work against diversity initiatives. Also a few minor things: LTER allows scientists to embargo their work for a couple years before releasing it. And a URL is not a stable identifier. Also: in the interest of transparency, it would be nice if you explained what each author actually did. I find it very hard to believe that 15 people "wrote the paper".
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily