This is a comment
which awaits moderation (for some time) at Gowers “Good guys” post, therefore I post it here. Here is it, with some links added:
After reading the rather heated exchanges around the subject of comments in epijournals, I am surprised by the fact that the best argument against comments that people here were able to find is by conflating comments in epijournals with comments in blogs.
I cannot imagine who would like to have comments in epijournals (or any other OA model) of the same quality as those on the average blog.
Therefore my impression is that much of the discussion here is just an example of a straw-man fallacy.
It is enough to look around and see that there are models who could inspire us.
Besides, I doubt very much that there is a majority against comments and I believe that Mike Taylor is only more vocal than others and for this he deserves some congratulations (and some respect, as a fellow scientist).
On peer-review and the big value it may have for epijournals, or even as a publishing business model, see also the posts:
- Comments in epijournals: we may learn from Wikipedia
- Peer-reviews don’t protect against plagiarism and articles retraction. Why?
- Peer-review is Cinderella’s lost shoe
- Peer-review turned on its head has market value