I looked briefly at SciPhu, and whatever it may be or how useful it could turn out, I certainly don't consider it peer review. My concern is that publish first, comment second represents an easy way around the rigors of review by experts in which publication is dependent on positive reviews and revision. I am all for open discussion, but initiatives started by people who don't publish much in the peer-reviewed literature or do not themselves review many manuscripts do not really appeal to me because it adds to my sense of concern that this is a backdoor. I am not trying to seem elitist, I am just saying that peer review, for all its problems, is there for a reason.

"....it adds to my sense of concern that this is a backdoor".

SciPhu is a backdoor, that's part of the concept. My view is that this backdoor can be just as good as the front one. The front door is too old-fashioned and narrow. Your arguments against such a way of publishing sounds similar to those against Wikipeidia when that came. Also if I am reading correctly between your lines, you are concerned that peer-reviewing and publishing will be done by second rate scientists or lay-men. I think that fear is overrated and I believe that the last couple of years with the explosion in Science blogging proves me right. If incorrect or inaccurate science is communicated on a blog, it is usually swiftly corrected by comments to that specific post or by posts on other blogs. I truly believe that peer-reviewing can be done in the Web 2.0 setting and I am confident it will be as good as, or better, than what we have today. For more elaboration see: http://sciphu.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/new-post-on-sciphucom-the-advantages-of-blog-publishing/

May I ask what your record is in terms of reviewing manuscripts and publishing peer reviewed articles?

Sure. Published: 12 (pubmed search), submitted: 1, manuscripts: 3, peer reviewed myself: 2, assisted in peer reviewing (helping supervisor during graduate days): 2. But, I need to add that when it comes to me doing peer reviewing I could have put as many as I wanted to since peer reviewing is anonymous and not disclosed to anyone but the authors (as opposed to publishing on a blog or Wiki).

I ask only because if someone wishes to say that blogs "can be just as good as" scientific peer review, one would expect that person to have extensive experience with the traditional process. One might also be forgiven for thinking that someone with only a few publications might be looking to skip the hard (but necessary) stage of getting through reviewers. Isn't it a bit odd to complain about the anonymous nature of peer review while moderating a "review" blog anonymously?

1. Others may have more "extensive" publishing records than me, but I believe my experience is sufficient to make statements on this subject. You are forgiven, the "hard but necessary" way of reviewing is what I am looking to get rid of. Not because I find it tedious or unnecessary, but because the process as it works today, is slow, imperfect, old-fashioned and flawed when it comes to selection of reviewers and editor entry point level. It is undemocratic basically. 2. You are assuming that the blogging review will not be as "hard". I do not see why this has to be the case. If a reviewer can write tough reviews on paper or in a mail-message, why couldn't the same reviewer write the same thing in a comment to a blog post ? I think you are a bit stuck in traditions here... Lastly on this point, one of the advantages of this way of publishing is that you can publish "quick and dirty" and through the fluid process of comments-reviewing your paper can evolve into a paper that may ultimately end up much better than what it would have in a traditional journal where the reviewing process seldom extends more than two to three rounds of communication between the authors and his/her peers.
3. I would call myself semi-anonymous since finding my name isn't that hard on the Sciphu site (tip: look at the author names on the Sciphu publications, - there are only three articles there and they all have one author in common). Besides, it's perfectly accepted and also common, to use an alias on the web, - again you may be caught in a traditional past...

I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on just about every item.

I'll just address these points once more before we move on (neither of us is seriously trying to convince the other, I suspect).

You are forgiven, the "hard but necessary" way of reviewing is what I am looking to get rid of. Not because I find it tedious or unnecessary, but because the process as it works today, is slow, imperfect, old-fashioned and flawed when it comes to selection of reviewers and editor entry point level. It is undemocratic basically.

Peer review isn't supposed to be democratic. It is supposed to be done by peers -- a set of individuals with highly specific knowledge in a particular field. The democratic part comes only once the paper gets through that filter, when it is made accessible to the entire community. Peer review is a vetting process, not a rating process.

You are assuming that the blogging review will not be as "hard". I do not see why this has to be the case.

You just said why.

If a reviewer can write tough reviews on paper or in a mail-message, why couldn't the same reviewer write the same thing in a comment to a blog post ?

Anonymity is protected (if desired) for reviewers -- after all, authors are colleagues, fellow reviewers, potential collaborators etc., but they are nontheless known (by the editor) to be specialists. Non-anonymous comments are not protected this way. Anonymous commenters are not known to be qualified.

you can publish "quick and dirty" and through the fluid process of comments-reviewing your paper can evolve into a paper that may ultimately end up much better than what it would have in a traditional journal where the reviewing process seldom extends more than two to three rounds of communication between the authors and his/her peers.

Science shouldn't be quick and dirty. There are standards befoe something is published. Many papers will not receive many comments. As it is, review is a first step vetting process, it is not the end of the review of published scientific papers. Publish first, comment second skips this vetting stage.

I would call myself semi-anonymous since finding my name isn't that hard on the Sciphu site (tip: look at the author names on the Sciphu publications, - there are only three articles there and they all have one author in common). Besides, it's perfectly accepted and also common, to use an alias on the web

I didn't say you shouldn't be anonymous, I said it was curious to see a complaint about the anonymity of review from someone posting anonymously. It likewise is curious to suggest that I am caught in the past in a comment on my science blog.

That's strange. Conclusions then: No one has more publishing experience than me, you don't want to be forgiven, peer reviewing is quick... and often extends to more than three rounds, finding my name on Sciphu.com is hard and aliases on the web is uncommon !!?? Now then, who is trying to "skip the hard (but necessary) stage of.." defending ones position on statements on the a blog. This proves my point that commenting on a blog can be just as tough as answering to your peers in a reviewing process (or a thesis or a talk at a conference).

Everything in that statement is a misrepresentation, and it certainly does little to lend credibility to the blog format for serious discussion.

Now you did respond, that takes the edge off my last comment....

But, just to clarify, I do not think that one has to reveal an identity, one can peer review, anonymoulsu also on a blog. And when it somes to expertise, it will be easy to see whether a commentator has knowledge in a given field or not.

Oh, and I almost forgot, - I've got three publications on SciPhu.com as well :)

It's probably the same for most people here also. We don't need a special badge because writing about science, most of it peer-reviewed (even PLoS), is what we do.

Like I said, I can understand the need for a special research blogging feed, especially in the science blogging communities that are more culture and opinion than educational, but the people who like it and want it probably already do it whereas we talk about why we don't (actually I only don't have my newsfeed there because I got errors on the page and don't try anything after two failures) but I think we are all in favor of more science writing that is high quality and more ways to get it out to people.

If it's Research Blogging, PLoS or SciPhu, it's all good. But peer reviewed journals are one thing I do support - believe me, if I knew a good model to get the same result I would have created it by now. The fact is, at least now, if you come up for review and your citations are all on SciPhu or PLoS, you are going to get clobbered.

Old media peer review has defects at each end of the tail, to be sure, but that's an issue dealing with humans, but it's a lot more legitimate than knowing someone paid a fee to be peer reviewed on the internet.

"....fact is, at least now, if you come up for review and your citations are all on SciPhu or PLoS, you are going to get clobbered."

This is very true. What I am saying is that I hope that it will be different in the future. Sciphu is probably not the final solution, but it is a starting point. And hopefully one of many similar initiatives to come. A site like this can be developed into a wiki or it can have staffed (unpaid) experts in given fields as reviewers or it can develop in any other direction. But, and this is important, it should never require fees of any sort from either referees, authors or readers. There are no fees attached to the sciphu site (it doesn't even have google adds), it's all non-profit scientific idealism.

Wait, what's the deal with PLoS? Are they not living up to their promise? As far as I knew, papers in PLoS ONE and such went through review before they could appear on the Net.

Nothing's wrong, a lot of great stuff goes on there (and we put it here.) But, if we are being honest, any time you have a "send us a check for $2500 and you get to be called peer reviewed" business model and you're dealing with people who have to pay bills, poor quality things slip through.

I think all of us have found things in print journals we don't agree with and we can all agree that 'peer reviewed' is subjective depending on the reviewers (*), but, when it comes to overall credibility, if you have Nature papers on your list or you have PLoS, you're going to get a different response from people looking over your citations.

Somewhere out there is a company that will let you pay to be in a movie so you can say you are an actor - it won't make you Harrison Ford.

(*) An intelligent design article that is peer-reviewed, for example, is not going to get a free pass here.

Well, I know several people who have published in PLoS, and I have reviewed manuscripts for PLoS Biology and PLoS ONE, and the general sense is that they are good journals. The cost is to keep copyright, not to buy publication. You can also pay $3000 and keep copyright with Springer journals.

I haven't objected to online publishing, nor open access, nor community pre-review. The ResearchBlogging project is an aggregating service that assembles posts on individual people's blogs. It is for making good summaries and comments on published articles accessible. This has nothing to do with peer review, and it has nothing to do with creating data.

Gadagkar is woefully mistaken about the state of OA publishing, anyway. The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees, for starters.