I am not sure if your response was to my post or a previous one. What am I wrong about? Also, can you link to that paper you mentioned above? Maybe I can get a better idea of where you are coming from if I read that.

1) Journals almost exclusively lose money.

2) Profit is not the reason that people submit and contribute to scholarly research.

I linked to a paper about all this a few months ago. This isn’t really a debate – it’s proven empirically.

I agree in the free distribution of all journal articles on the web. However, I do not agree in bypassing the peer-review process that comes in the form of submitting those articles to a journal. So if Harvard wants to make all of their scholarly research available for free for everyone, fine then, as long as Harvard is paying for the distribution and the journals themselves still have a revenue source to bring their members together for the peer-review process. The way to look at a journal is akin to a standards body, much like the American Medical Association, or ANSI, IEEE, etc. There is a real need for a strong review of the methods, procedures, and conclusions (especially in scientific endeavors) to serve as a check to human bias and fraud. The value the journals serve is not like a middleman in a commercial enterprise, but more of like a quality assurance body. Bypassing this system undermines a very significant process that enables the accumulation and verification of complex human knowledge.

Second, the posting of the finished paper will (in most cases) be done after the article has been published in a traditional journal. That means the article will be peer-reviewed, Harvard will just host another copy of it. More journals than not allow authors to post their papers after publication.

End of story. The rest is just people pretending like they have a say in something that they don’t. And of course, projecting meaning and significance on something that never had any in the first place.

Do I think that academic research should be available for free online to anyone who wants to read it? Yes, of course.

Do I think that anyone who wants to should be allowed to publish research online and call it academic work, without an editor or review system? No.

Peer review doesn’t have to go away (and isn’t) — surely if you really care about producing great work and believe that peer review is important then there’s no reason why you should avoid it. The web is just a new way to distribute your work, it doesn’t dictate how you should produce this work. By all means, if you wish to differentiate yourself from the rest, set up a team of editors to check your work — you can publish online in the same manner as an academic journal publishes offline.

The web gives freedom for everyone to publish their work, not tied down by the old media and ways of distribution — I don’t think that this freedom is a bad thing. Sure, you’ll have more information to search through, but the good stuff will always be there no matter how many “unverified” and “unedited” works are published alongside it.

The final stage is of course consumption. Charlie mentions the benefits of a mobile, durable and customizable media that the real book provides. It’s true, the computer screen isn’t an ideal reading instrument, but that’s going to change very soon. Companies like Amazon are starting to understand this and we’re only just now seeing specialized reading devices entering production. In a few years time I’m sure we will have compact screens the size of a book which would be just as durable and simple to use as a real book — but with content unchained from publishing deals through the free distribution of the web.

The blog, forum, or website could be the very next book, journal, or magazine. All it takes is time.

It’s fine, keep thinking this way. Then one day you’ll wake up and almost all the authoritative sources will have closed up shop and researchers will still be publishing accurate work. (just like the newspapers) Why? Because peer review and the idea of “an important, respected journal” have NOTHING to do with each other it. They just happened to end up in the same boat.

A researcher in any academic field should hold themselves to rigourous methodological standards not because they are afraid that an editor might snap at them, but because the job they are doing demands that they do so.

I would not be surprised to see someone stuck on the wrong side of the “publish or perish” dilemma try to take advantage of the system. Similar for those trying to pad their CV for professorships, grants, and the like. However, competent scientists and academics can spot bullshit a mile away, and will not hesitate for an instant to call bullshit if they see the need. In my opinion, this is why an open scholarly system would work, and should exist.