From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:36:00 -0500 On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:03 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:15:53 +0100 > > PeerJ looks to be a fascinating project as one would expect if Peter Binfield has anything to do with this but like ELife and other existing journals it seems to be aimed at the Nature slot or something just below Nature. The quotation from Peter is rather a giveaway - "It is far more embarrassing to produce work which no one finds worth commenting upon - or that no one finds at all." > > It is my understanding that the myth that there are papers no one reads has been exploded but others will correct me. Just to clarify, that particular quote was something I said, not Binfield. And my purpose was not to perpetuate the myth you mention - or to muddy the waters on the issue of specialized research - but simply to respond to the claim that having an open peer review process would be embarrassing because people would see your works in progress. This might be the case, but it should also be embarrassing (or at least humbling) to find that, even if we expose this process in public, warts and all, no one notices. My point was not that people don't read (or download these papers) but that it is better to be embarrassed by people having downloaded, read, and commented upon them than it is to be embarrassed by their utter disinterest. The open peer review process being discussed makes both possible, and ultimately it may be the fear of both that makes people resistant to these new innovations. On the other hand, I suppose your point illustrates that the current system does alleviate both kinds of embarrassment, at least for people who get published. The closed peer review process shields us from our compositional foibles, allowing only the polished, final version to appear; and the specialization of journals ensures that, though the audience may be small, it is an audience directly tailored to receive the message and argument being presented, increasing the chances that a truly engaged and authoritative audience member will provide you with legitimating feedback - or even a citation! thanks, Sean Andrews