Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking more about the detailed points reviewers might make about specifics from particular EA research, rather than getting data on the general quality of EA research to inform how seriously to take other such research (which also seems very/more valuable).
Data on “general quality” was my goal here, yes, albeit split up by source (since “EA research” includes everything from published journal articles to informal blog posts).
Specifics are valuable too, but in my work, I often have to decide which recent research to share, and how widely; I don’t expect experts to weigh in very quickly, but a general sense of quality from different sources may help me make better judgments around what to share.
Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking more about the detailed points reviewers might make about specifics from particular EA research, rather than getting data on the general quality of EA research to inform how seriously to take other such research (which also seems very/more valuable).
Data on “general quality” was my goal here, yes, albeit split up by source (since “EA research” includes everything from published journal articles to informal blog posts).
Specifics are valuable too, but in my work, I often have to decide which recent research to share, and how widely; I don’t expect experts to weigh in very quickly, but a general sense of quality from different sources may help me make better judgments around what to share.