WIKIMEDIA, BRIAN108 (LEFT); SWTPC6800 (RIGHT)It used to be that the only way a scientist could keep up with the latest research in her field was to read printed papers published in the journals that she or her institution had subscribed to. Then came the Internet. Compared with other communities, the scientific enterprise was slow to embrace the digital dissemination of information. Eventually, most journals appeared online.
During the transition to this new world of advanced access and online firsts, more and more scientists began blogging and participating in crowdsourced commentary. Today, many stakeholders agree that the publishing system ought to be replaced with a more efficient and transparent platform: one that benefits both authors and readers. But before we can improve upon the existing formula, we must assess its utility.
Scholarly journals serve two major functions: curation and dissemination. Under the current framework, the curatorial function that journal editors and peer reviewers fulfill is considered problematic by many scientists: there is often tremendous disagreement among editors and reviewers about what constitutes a sufficiently “significant” advance to warrant publication in a specific journal1. Acceptance of a given manuscript largely reflects a value ...
