People have criticism of peer review as a system (eg see here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/peer-review) . Have you given any thought to how it could be improved at Flourish?

Thanks for this, it seems like a cool opportunity. I had a look at the criteria and it seems like a crucial part of the evaluation criteria is whether a piece "if taken seriously" would  "make the world better" and whether the piece is "related to positive impact/improving the world". These seem like overly restrictive criteria on submissions: for instance, book reviews that are critical of core EA messages (but nevertheless making valid points) or essays on topics that are only tangentially related to positive impact could be ignored or discounted under your review process. This would not be unsimilar to some of the arguments against the previous EA criticism competition.

I wonder if this would lead to an aggregation of submissions that have been self-censored and self-filtered for content and perspectives that are non-critical and non-combative with the EA concepts, simply by the fact that a criticism could be seen to not relate to positive impact or necessarily to making the world better but rather in drawing out a different viewpoint to the traditional EA "doctrine".