Re: Growth for STM publishers in 2008

["Bill Hooker" <cwhooker@fastmail.fm>]

> PLOS, on the other hand, has already demonstrated one way to 
> lower costs through its PLOS One program. The reduction in cost 
> derives from adopting a policy of less rigorous peer review.

PLoS ONE peer review is no whit less *scientifically* rigorous 
than that imposed by any other journal.  The only difference is 
that PLoS ONE does not ask reviewers to make impossible guesses 
as to what judgement history is likely to pass on a given paper. 
I would hesitate to describe the addition of such guesswork to 
the review process as an increase in rigor.

So far as costs are concerned -- whatever the cost of 
prognostications about likely importance, I personally would 
rather the publishers skip that step and pass on the savings.

If, that is, there are savings.  How exactly does the PLoS ONE 
model of peer review result in lower costs?

B.