Changes

|Description=To ensure the advancement of knowledge, an academic workflow requires some ''closure mechanism'', i.e. some idea as to what counts as a communal consensus and when and how it is to be achieved. This is far from obvious, as different workflows often have different procedures for consensus formation. In some workflows, the closure happens with the publication of the paper, while in others it happens long after the initial publication, if at all. In the latter case, workflows can differ in their understanding of what counts as a consensus (e.g. unanimity, lack of explicit objection, majority opinion, etc.)."While views differ as to how closure should proceed, they agree that we need some way to close debates or discussions such that they do not extend indefinitely."[[CiteRef::Shaw and Barseghyan (2019)]] Thus, it is important for the scientonomic workflow to have a proper closure mechanism in place to ensure that suggested modifications are evaluated and verdicts are reached communally in an inclusive and transparent fashion.