Re:Prism: Coalition of journal publishers fighting free onli...
by ivankirigin on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @09:53AM
(#50426)
I don't quite get it. They cry censorship, but then want to continue keeping research behind the wall of payment.
All professors I've met would love to have more people read their papers. The way to do this is to make them open.
I understand the need for peer-review, but I don't see the need for it to be expensive.
A non-profit group could start peer-review.org. It would be a social network of researchers that rate the skills of other researchers. Ratings and reviews of papers submitted to the site would be scaled with something like a page-rank algorithm based on the collective reputation of the reviewers. The highest ranked papers would be presented on the front page of the topic area. Topic areas could be extremely customizable to precise niches.
It's interesting that the voting schemes of social news sites could be applied to the problem.
A final note, the following search works wonders to find gated papers:
"[paper name]" filetype:pdf
All professors I've met would love to have more people read their papers. The way to do this is to make them open.
I understand the need for peer-review, but I don't see the need for it to be expensive.
A non-profit group could start peer-review.org. It would be a social network of researchers that rate the skills of other researchers. Ratings and reviews of papers submitted to the site would be scaled with something like a page-rank algorithm based on the collective reputation of the reviewers. The highest ranked papers would be presented on the front page of the topic area. Topic areas could be extremely customizable to precise niches.
It's interesting that the voting schemes of social news sites could be applied to the problem.
A final note, the following search works wonders to find gated papers: "[paper name]" filetype:pdf