recommended by Rafe Colburn

Traditional methods of peer review are coming under strain as the volume of manuscripts and the number of forums for manuscript submission rise. These pressures can result in poorer quality reviews, extended publication times, and higher costs to the organisations that fund research. In this paper we describe a method for reducing reviewing burden, expediting feedback and shortening publication times. Furthermore, by its nature, the method produces leading (as opposed to lagging/trailing) publication metrics for authors and the manuscripts they write, and we show how these metrics can be used by search engines to provide more useful orderings of search results. Finally, we briefly discuss the potential to apply the underlying mechanism of the method to application domains beyond research publishing, such as the web as a whole.

"It is difficult to imagine, except rhetorically, how advocating for Open Access can be divorced from working for a different structuring of power in science."

via Glyn Moody

This study examines the costs and potential benefits of alternative models for scientific and scholarly publishing in the Netherlands. It is a follow-up of the Australian study ‘Research Communication Costs, Emerging Opportunities and Benefits’ (Houghton et al. 2006) and the UK/JISC study ‘Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models’.