The reaction to this will be interesting... At first glance, it looks like Google is firing a shot across the bow at, oh... pretty much every scientific research journal.As long as big journals provide a useful service, this tool will only enhance their effectiveness. But the more they take months to review our publications, and the more they give unqualified reviews, and the more they force us to clear irrelevant hurdles prior to publication, and the more they lock up our works behind fees and copyright transfers, the more this tool will provide an alternative to their services.
Update, 14 August 2014:After years of silence, Wired has an article that picks up this thread as a rumour.
Google is allegedly working on a free, open access platform for the research, collaboration and publishing of peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I'm very very curious to see how this will turn out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Q&A link!
ReplyDeleteAnd if just "anyone" can give reviews, how are they actually useful?
I think the term "peer review" is misapplied here. What they're really talking about is digital signatures, a way to show you are who you say you are.
I don't see anything in the Q&A that addresses how to accomplish everything else that journals do. The response to "What incentive do credible researchers have to review my works?" is telling.
This is way beyond open access publishing. The consequences of adopting this model will take a long time to consider.