Re: First Monday article on OA

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, David Groenewegen wrote:

> It's an interesting take on the issue, but I'd have to argue with at least
> one of the assumptions that underpins many of the conclusions:
> 
> JE: "In a world of electronic networks, however, peer review can and should
> take place after publication. 

So would I! See:

    Peer Review Reform Hypothesis-Testing
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0479.html

    A Note of Caution About "Reforming the System"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1169.html

    Self-Selected Vetting vs. Peer Review: Supplement or Substitute?
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2340.html

    Harnad, S. (1998/2000) The invisible hand
    of peer review. Nature [online] (5 Nov. 1998)
    http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
    Longer version in Exploit Interactive 5 (2000):
    http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/

Stevan Harnad