Open Access? Open Peer-Review?

Journal publishers piss me off sometimes - but I don't particuarly see the problem with traditional peer review. Unless you're the most brilliant person - or can't get it published elsewhere I still think traditional journals are the best.

As for the free access... Does the public really need access to scholarly journals? If people really want something there is always the easy option of emailing the author - who most of the time will be very happy to forward a copy of the manuscript.

Scientists frustrated by the iron grip that academic journals hold over their research can now pursue another path to fame by taking their research straight to the public online.

Instead of having a group of hand-picked scholars review research in secret before publication, a growing number of Internet-based journals are publishing studies with little or no scrutiny by the authors' peers. It's then up to rank-and-file researchers to debate the value of the work in cyberspace.

The Web journals are threatening to turn on its head the traditional peer-review system that for decades has been the established way to pick apart research before it's made public.

Next month, the San Francisco-based nonprofit Public Library of Science will launch its first open peer-reviewed journal called PLoS ONE, focusing on science and medicine. Like its sister publications, it will make research articles available for free online by charging authors to publish.