You don't consider the simplification of Chinese "language", nor the ordering of Nynorsk, or the creation of the Korean alphabet.
You don't think the efforts of thousands of teachers across a nation teaching the language prescriptively according to the designs of the state constitutes language. You seem to consider it forceful meddling in a natural evolution that should be left to just do what it does, unrestrained and undisturbed by judgmental nerds.
I'm sorry, but this seems like a profoundly archaic, indirect, and unnecessary way to format it.
And with how brief you people seem to describe these peer reviews, they're apparently lower effort than a good reddit comment, yet they cannot be directly publicly visibly attached to the article they are directly reviewing?
Academia can't be too proud to take a hint of inspiration from the mitigating effects of well-informed internet comments and Twitter's community notes against low quality content?
Why would intelligent people shackle their own publications by simulating the limitations of last century? Separately published "letters"? Honestly?
The few times I've heard the processes of papers and journals described, they seem to be clinging to the logistical solutions of physical paper with some kind of demented nostalgic love for the flaws of it.
British? No.
I'm perfectly fine in a world without waspcorpse figs.
Is there no journal/publishing site where other scientists can put out publicly visible peer reviews of a paper after the paper is already published?
I've personally had much less respect for global academia ever since I learned how publishing journals can demand so much from researchers and their audience, while providing so little.
I'm only a layman casual, but I have never in my life seen an actual peer review.
I've read/skimmed actual papers from primary sources whenever I actually care to try to understand the proof for something. No idea what a peer review looks like, no idea if the paper I read were ever peer reviewed.
I'm guessing maybe the publisher itself also/sometimes does the "we read it, looks fine"-process? Either way, I've never seen one. They're like some mythical creature I've only ever heard descriptions of.
Americans are so bad at measurements that graduation marks don't work for them.
They need an individual container for each common measurement.
It's absurd.
Lemmy sounds too dumb, that could never happen.
It'll remain but a curious whiff downwind from Spez's backyard mass grave, no unfamiliar passerby will ever recognize what it is or give it much thought beyond asking "What the fuck is that..?" without pausing their stride much if at all.
What's convenient is that we find it obscene to patch the assrest, which would mark the posterior-stressed spot unless executed unusually well.
So we just replace the whole fucking chair, piston, wheels, back, bolts and all.
Makes the chair business go round and round like a kid who just discovered the only remnant of joy mankind allowed to exist in the office.
Internal inconsistencies fester and degrade a language if the changes people like you defend are not only left unshamed, but even encouraged as "creative".