I wrote last month about my desire for more open access in science, and how PLoS was leading the way. I also said I had some ideas about what more could be done.
It looks like PLoS ONE stole them.
Of course, I jest.
Obviously they’ve been working on this for a while, and I missed it. I only know about it because I’m now subscribed to their RSS feed. This is the framework upon which the future of science publishing will be built. There are many PLoS (Public Library of Science, by the way) journals — PLoS ONE seems to aim to be the open-access equivalent of Science or Nature.
Anyone is allowed to register and comment on or rate articles (with some caveats). They even have guidelines for rating articles. The initial review they mention by an editor and perhaps a few reviewers keeps out the quacks, but anyone is allowed to point out weaknesses in the article or make suggestions on it. It reverses my original idea a bit, in which the article would not be “published” until it had passed a vote by public reviewers, but it is perhaps a more functional model.
I am planning to register and see about reviewing and commenting on some articles. Are you?
Having just recently become involved in editing some Wikipedia entry, I am dubious about open reviewing processes (though less dubious than I am about open direct editing. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.
In economics, SSRN began, several years ago, publishing papers and advertising hits and downloads (but no reviewing). They probably dominate the market despite some competition from REPEC, and getting hits and downloads does grant bragging rights, but, to my knowledge not much more (eg, I do not think these are of any particular value in the tenure process).
Also in economics, the BE Press have a web-based publishing and reviewing process, but except for the journals be electronic, their model is pretty similar to traditional publishing.
Pingback: Virtually Shocking » Blog Archive » Follow-up on PLoS ONE Ratings, from PLoS