Dear Phil
It is fine, that you wrote this essay and gave some useful examples like meteoroid, tamiflu, etc. There it is an analysis of our publication system and a lot of arguments for your claims.
You gave also good comments, for instance: ''It is much easier to keep a check on articles that have to be summaries from reliable sources rather than articles that develop their own new ideas. This is why open peer-review is harder, even of some of the same principles will apply.'' As a bad consequence, professional researcher reject these amateur ideas instead to find some sophisticated model for analysis of them.
Your point eight, Normalcy bias, is very similar to my claim for non-zero probability for Amateurs that they will develop a new good theory in basic physics. This is by statistical laws, because Gaussian curve is everywhere different than zero. It is strange to me that leading physicists do not know this, because their understanding of statistics is good.
It is also written in my fictious essay:
The next presenter is Phil Gibbs. Many years ago he established his electronic preprint archive viXra [7]. '' I was attacked many times that no one paper appears on my portal which can be useful for science.'' he begins. ''They claim that useful ideas can be given only by professionals, which can publish in arXiv [8], but not by amateurs, which are doing research in free time and they can publish only in viXra. Therefore I counted those useful papers and I made statistics. Yes, such papers exist which brought benefit to science. Still more, it is possible to calculate probability that a professional or amateur paper will be beneficial for science in dependence of time, money, intelligence of a researcher, help at research, and largeness of research group. It is even possible to estimate impact of gender part in the group [9]. Admittedly, amateurs are less intelligent in average than professionals, because professionals go through a larger number of selections. Amateurs have less time and no money for research, except their own money. But probability for correctness of their theories is not zero. On the other side, amateur's theories come across too little arguments for their rejections than professional's ones. Thus their (un)correctness is much less checked. We should know that influential statistical parameters are mainly distributed by Gaussian curves, or at least, probability never falls toward zero.''
My pdf essay
My essay entrance
You provided for the first urgent necessity for amateur researchers, you founded viXra. I hope that you will also read my essay and gave comments about it.
I hope also that all we will develop some good system of evaluation of the FQXi essays and also viXra papers.