Some subscribers Phys-L might be interested in a recent post "Re:
Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review" [Hake (2010)].
The abstract reads:
*****************************************************
ABSTRACT: Some subscribers might be interested in Patricia Cohen's
(2010) NYT report "Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review."
Cohen wrote: "Clubby exclusiveness, sloppy editing and fraud have all
marred peer review on occasion. Anonymity can help prevent personal
bias, but it can also make reviewers less accountable; exclusiveness
can help ensure quality control but can also narrow the range of
feedback and participants." I give several examples of sloppy editing
by "The American Journal of Physics."
*****************************************************
"You can write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in
terms of papers rejected by 'Science' or 'Nature.' Big ideas in all
fields endure dismissals, mockeries, and persecutions (for them and
their creators)."
Paul C. Lauterbur, cowinner of the 2003 Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2003/press.html>
whose seminal 1973 paper on magnetic resonance imaging was originally
rejected by "Nature."
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/>]
Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/cMwTB9>. Post
of 25 Aug 2010 09:05:15-0700. The abstract and link to the complete
post were also transmitted to various discussion lists.