Amongst all this rhetorical brush-beating, what were you trying to teach the snakes?

Your (many) replies on this topic are being down voted for a reason; please either post substantive comments or stop.

Yes, for a reason, but not a reasonable reason, but the same reason you have for your comment: you just don’t know any better.

Something like this sketch work for you?

peer(X, 0) :- founding_peer(X).

electorate(T, count<Y>) :- peer(Y, T).

support(X, T, count<Y>) :- candidate(X), peer(Y, T), recognizes(Y, X, T+1).

peer(X, T+1) :- support(X, T, Votes), electorate(T, Total), 2 * Votes > Total.

Still waiting for a definition. People giving nonsense reviews is a feature of the peer review system though, yes.

I want to ensure your PhD is actually from somebody who is acknowledged in the system of peers I bought into, before I want to risk wasting more of my time defining and explain while guessing at your ability to parse and understand them.

Or you could just give me a sensible definition.

> I have a PhD in computational logic.

And you don't know how the peer-review system works?

Just a hunch but Claude saying your work is "PhD level" does not count