Nobody would deny this: "The academic peer review system as it currently stands is frustrating and dysfunctional for many of those who participate in it." In fact, I have stopped reviewing papers completely (despite the presumptuous and sometimes insistent emails I get from journals practically demanding I do a peer review for them). But the peer review problem is not going to be solved by creating a market for peer reviewers. I personally think that over time people will publish in open access repositories (aka preprint repositories like ArXiv) and 'journals' will be created by one or a group of people collating and listing the best of those papers they find, much as I do in OLDaily. In this way, people can see the 'review' process as it happens from day to day, and there's no mystery about any bias or sloppiness in the system - it's there for all to see. So, over time, instead of a paper being 'published in Nature' we'll find it's 'listed in Nature', which will be just as good, and much more transparent.
Today: 0 Total: 113 [Direct link] [Share]
