Ed Dodds wrote: > I wonder if the avaible technology says it is time to shift the paradigm > and to post articles to wikis FOR PEER REVIEW...
An new open access journal, PLoS ONE (see http://www.plosone.org ) offers a rapid, traditional (albeit fully online, no paper) peer-review process together with the ability for readers to annotate and comment on papers after they are published. It has only just started but is attracting quality papers, in part because it is a sister publication tot he PLoS (Public Library of Science) stable of open access journals (see http://www.plos.org ), which are really excellent. All of these journals charge author fees, as does BioMed Central (see http://www.biomedcentral.com ) as a means of covering costs without having to resort to too much advertising. An alternative model is that used in the physical sciences, in which draft papers and manuscripts are self-published online, without peer-review, on sites like arXiv.org (see http://www.arxiv.org/ ), where others can comment on the papers. Authors may then submit the papers are they are refined to peer-reviewed conferences or journals. Excellent system. Of course the biomedical open access journals, and in fact many of the traditional closed-access biomedical journals, if you read their fine print, allow authors to self-publish pre-prints and manuscripts on Web sites for initial review. It is just that there is no tradition of doing so in the biomedical sciences, unlike the physical sciences. Tim C _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
