An OA publisher representative asked me. "What would you like to see ... publishers doing that they aren’t now to help promote growth of OA? Outside of supporting it more, obviously ;). Any specific steps you’d like to see us make?"
I responded with:
Sorry it took me a while to respond… I’ve been thinking about how and what to write back.
1) I would like to see some more experiments in different peer-review systems. Other scientists have argued for reviews to take place after the article is published, similar to the Faculty of 1000. (But that system is extra review after the pre-publication peer reviewing is already done.) Why not make the post publication review the peer review? This way, the publications can make it out to the public faster.
Here are some good posts and reports concerning the convoluted peer review system we have now.
Michael Nielsen has a great new book out. (Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science) Have you read this yet? It should be required reading at [Publisher name redacted]. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691148902
Jason Priem does good work on alt.metrics for journals. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
I am not sure who does this blog, but it seems very well thought out.
PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING: ITS MEANING, LOCUS, AND FUTURE.by Dr. Diane Harley and Sophia Krzys Acord. We had Diane Harley come to our campus last year, and here is her presentation. See the third video down, http://library.du.edu/penrosepen/videos-from-the-provost-conference
There are lots of other good writers and scientists who would like to see faster publication through different arrangements of peer review.
2) Could you get my faculty to understand all of the different models and systems of scholarly communication out there? Get the university’s administrators to modify the tenure and promotion system to encourage more openness? (Yeah, this is a tough one.)