[I]n science, replicability of a study is a far better means of assessing the accuracy of research results than peer review. In an open source science environment, many experiments could be replicated in less than the average time it takes to publish a peer-reviewed paper....In the electronic environment, it should be possible to develop means of tracking replications of a given experiment. This does not necessarily mean that peer review would not be necessary and desirable....
Comment. Exactly. By permitting wider and more rapid dissemination than conventional publication, OA permits wider and quicker uptake, confirmation, and disconfirmation. This benefits everyone who cares about research and it doesn't exclude any form of peer review (traditional or innovative). Let a thousand forms of quality control bloom --or more simply, let's take full advantage of OA and the internet. They don't strap us into a single model of quality control but free us to try new ones and use multiple models simultaneously.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 2/19/2006 11:08:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
