Changes

|Date Suggested Day=22

|Date Suggested Approximate=No

|Resource=Shaw and Barseghyan (2019)

|Preamble=The current scientonomic workflow has no proper ''closure mechanism'', for it is ambiguous as to how verdicts on suggested modifications are to be achieved. Specifically, it is unclear as to what constitutes a ''consensus''. It is implicit in the current practice that ''consensus'' is understood as ''a lack of explicit objection'', i.e. if nobody objects to a suggested modification then even a handful of positive comments are sufficient to make the modification accepted. However, there are problems with this approach. Specifically, people may not want to accept the modification, but may not want to object to it ''explicitly'' for a variety of reasons. For instance, some people may not wish to be seen as impeding the modification's acceptance. If a modification is proposed or supported by a senior member of the community, then many - especially junior scholars - may feel uncomfortable criticizing it. It is also the case that different members of the community may have different “tenacity” when debating proposed modifications: some people may withdraw from a debate because they grow tired of arguing rather than because they are convinced. In addition, the current workflow imposes ''no time limits'' on when objections can be raised by. This creates two issues: in some cases suggested modifications are accepted too quickly before dissent has a chance to emerge, while in other cases suggested modifications are not accepted for a long time despite the lack of dissent. In short, without a proper closure mechanism or a time limit in place, suggested modifications can be accepted either prematurely or become abandoned. Thus, a solution is needed to ensure that the workflow has a proper closure mechanism and a time limit.

|Automatic=No

|Date Assessed Approximate=No

}}