This model, where multiple resources are represented in a review paper that makes them more accessible, can be replicated in a hierarchical structure. So there might be a lot of committees actually doing pioneering work within specific fields of focus. But higher-level committees can be formed to review lower-level committees, producing a more synoptic review of a wider field of focus. For example, there might be more than one committee devoted to just the study of electrons, each from a different perspective (e.g., one using the Bohr model, another using Quantum Mechanics, another using Aetherometry, etc.). Each workgroup is responsible for summarizing the strategy and accomplishments. Then, each of those reviews gets reviewed by the Atomic Theory workgroup. New committees who want to collaborate on a different method of studying electrons will go through the Atomic Theory review, find that nobody else is doing what they propose, so they'll go ahead with their initiative. If they make progress, they'll petition the Atomic Theory committee to mention their achievements in the review. Likewise the Atomic Theory review is mentioned in the Physics review, which appears in the Science review. At every level, there can be competing approaches, and it will be up to the higher level group to simply figure out where in the review a particular initiative fits. The committee might not have anything nice to say about a particular approach, but any substantial effort (however hopelessly deluded) should nevertheless appear in a review of works within the field of focus.
So someone doing original research on a topic will want to post it into the existing review article on that topic. The review team will then decide how to handle the contribution. Of course, review articles always have their own biases, and there will be times when a post will get removed that the poster thought belonged there. But this just means that there might be an opportunity for the poster to write a review article of her own, to include her stuff, and the works of others, as a more complete representation of the topic. She will then post her review into the higher-level category. If it is, indeed, a better review, it will persist there, and might result in the other review getting removed.
We can easily see how this might result in a lot of branches in the hierarchy — one for each distinct view — and we're still not necessarily any better off than we are now. But we will exert a convergent organizational force that will encourage people to do higher quality work, and to take all viewpoints into account in their work. Starting at the top of the hierarchy, the site administrators will organize posts into categories that make the material easy to navigate. Any particular article might show up in more than one category, so it will not be necessary to define the ultimate classification scheme (which is impossible to do for original research that defies existing schemes by definition). But we'll provide sensible structures that people can use to navigate the material. And like everybody else in this sociocracy, we'll be responsible for our level, and for everything posted directly into it. So if we see low quality stuff, especially at or near the top level, we'll remove it. In time, the only articles that will persist at or near the top will be the ones that accurately and clearly describe the broad range of issues within that field of focus, and without leaving much out. Any article at that level that is too restrictive in its coverage of the topic will be vulnerable to replacement by somebody else's article that is more comprehensive.
Parallel committees will get reviewed by higher committees.