I am in broad agreement with this article, which argued (in painstaking detail) that: "The first breaking point is in business models - the unsustainable costs and inefficiencies of traditional commercial publishing... The second potential breaking point is the credibility of the peer review system: its accountability, its textual practices, the validity of its measures and its exclusionary network effects. The third breaking point is post–publication evaluation, centered primarily around citation or impact analysis. We argue that the prevailing system of impact analysis is deeply flawed. Its validity as a measure of knowledge is questionable." Reform is needed along all three breaking points, and reshaping our understanding of peer review and impact evaluation may prove to be more deeply disruptive than open access journals. But for the better. Via P2P Foundation and Sean FitzGerald.
Today: 0 Total: 13 [Direct link] [Share]
