I agree with the need for cheaper (if not free) access to peer-reviewed research; as a student in biology who intends to go into research, I have an excellent view of how the cost of access to research data continues to limit the growth of knowledge. However, it is a sad fact that although there are options like Google Scholar, because most well done, "legitimate", and generally well regarded research is still hidden behind pay walls. In a genetics seminar today, my professor mentioned how the only efficient method for finding good research articles is through databases of journals (like JSTOR) with entry costs that I am able to afford only because the university pays them. Until this problem is remedied with more access without general cost, Google Scholar won't be able to mitigate the access issue.
Secondarily, while an online-only, free access journal sounds like internet utopia, I am leery of the line "the journal promises a faster turnaround time for the peer review process, which typically takes several months." The per review process may be too slow for some people's taste, and seems frankly geological to the internet community, there are reasons for it. Peer review takes time because a whole bunch of people go over everything that you state in a paper, making sure that there is no way that your scholarship or ethics could be called into question regarding your article. I can't help but worry that "faster turnaround" will just result in a glut of sloppy or shady articles being published and referenced. Having bad or sloppy research be the primary public form of research will do nothing but harm the education of the public and the integrity of science in general.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Samuel Newkirk.
Issues with Google Scholar, etc
I agree with the need for cheaper (if not free) access to peer-reviewed research; as a student in biology who intends to go into research, I have an excellent view of how the cost of access to research data continues to limit the growth of knowledge. However, it is a sad fact that although there are options like Google Scholar, because most well done, "legitimate", and generally well regarded research is still hidden behind pay walls. In a genetics seminar today, my professor mentioned how the only efficient method for finding good research articles is through databases of journals (like JSTOR) with entry costs that I am able to afford only because the university pays them. Until this problem is remedied with more access without general cost, Google Scholar won't be able to mitigate the access issue.
Secondarily, while an online-only, free access journal sounds like internet utopia, I am leery of the line "the journal promises a faster turnaround time for the peer review process, which typically takes several months." The per review process may be too slow for some people's taste, and seems frankly geological to the internet community, there are reasons for it. Peer review takes time because a whole bunch of people go over everything that you state in a paper, making sure that there is no way that your scholarship or ethics could be called into question regarding your article. I can't help but worry that "faster turnaround" will just result in a glut of sloppy or shady articles being published and referenced. Having bad or sloppy research be the primary public form of research will do nothing but harm the education of the public and the integrity of science in general.