Traditional Publishing: verification
*Gate keeping + accept/reject dichotomy + deprioritized peer review
C-SQD model: error correction
*No gate keeping + manuscript evaluation tuples + extensive and on-going peer review
Traditional academic publishing operates on a gatekeeping model, where manuscripts must pass through an accept/reject filter before they are considered part of the scientific record. This process enforces a binary verdict, prioritizing verification over continuous scrutiny. Once a paper is accepted, peer review effectively ends, and errors—whether conceptual, methodological, or statistical—often go unchallenged unless they are egregious enough to warrant a retraction. This model creates an illusion of certainty while discouraging ongoing correction and refinement, which are essential to scientific progress.
C-SQD fundamentally reverses this paradigm. Instead of treating publication as an endpoint, we see it as a starting point for rigorous and continuous evaluation. By removing gatekeeping, we allow all research to enter the discourse while structuring peer review around manuscript evaluation tuples—multi-dimensional assessments that provide nuanced feedback beyond a simple accept/reject decision. More importantly, C-SQD fosters extensive and ongoing peer review, where the scientific community actively engages in critique, replication, and refinement over time. This shift places error correction over verification, recognizing that knowledge advances not through rigid barriers but through iterative improvement and open debate.