2. “publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review” Eric Dezenhall, PR Consultant to Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron chief, ExxonMobil and, in 2006, to the Association of American Publishers “Media massaging is not the same as intellectual debate.”

3. “…the rigor of peer review is independent of the price, medium, and funding model of a journal. Open Access may threaten the profits and market position of some publishers, but it does not threaten the quality of published science.” Peter Suber, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html

4. Actually, OA improves quality We don’t have to stick with the old models of publishing peer reviewed papers Right now, quality control ends when a paper is published, and interaction between authors and readers is rare The internet is a revolutionary technology and Web 2.0 can make the process of scientific publishing better by “harnessing collective intelligence” -Tim O'Reilly, 2006,Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again

5. Oct 2003 Oct 2004 Open access 2.0 The Next Generation 2005: Community Journals Open access

7. Inclusive: all of science and medicine Objective pre-publication peer- review:focusing on scientific rigor Post-publication commentary: interactive, dynamic, open Collaborative: In Beta - open source software site being developed with input from users New ways of assessing quality: eg, user annotations

8. www.plos.org

15. The literature is vast Machines can be used to discover previously unknown information Open access facilitates this discovery process Why quality is so important: text mining and open access

16. Text mining

17. www.plos.org Jensen, Saric and Bork Nature Reviews Genetics Feb 2006

18. OA will improve the quality of the scientific record Makes papers more available for scrutiny Contributes more efficiently to the wider literature Web 2.0 has the potential to encourage active criticism and correction