The academic publication process is tightly controlled by an elite cadre of journal editors and peer reviewers. This system unnecessarily constrains the dissemination of knowledge from a diverse array of contributors. Currently, it is estimated that only 32% of journal submissions are ever published, with some top journals publishing roughly 1% of submissions. How many excellent papers never see the light of day? Furthermore, the status quo results in significant resource misallocation; the deleterious allotment of fiscal, individual, and societal human capital is a wasteful drain on finite resources.

Deviating from the Rotten Tomatoes website, originally developed as a platform to allow experts and the public to rate movies, we are creating a platform that disrupts the gatekeepers monopoly on the distribution of knowledge. Enabling academics to instantaneously publish their work subverts and democratizes the current paradigm. Moreover, providing access to transparent, critical, and collaborative commentary from public and expert reviewers may engender additional scientific discovery and advancement. According to Ari Carlos Pena of Harvard Business School, “Rotten Tomatoes has certainly impacted the way in which we think about which films to see. No longer do most people rely on one or two critics for an opinion on the quality of the films they see, but rather they rely on crowds, both audience and critical, to generate a consensus.” Similarly, Rotten Tomatoes Papers has the potential to change how valuable scientific contributions are disseminated, reviewed, and integrated into the public domain.