Susan West and Michael Gold at Content Wise have a good summary of some of our online activities.

They really focus on our social software initiatives, which are definitely a central part of what we’re doing. I would have added databases and podcasting, which are both very important and rapidly growing areas for us. They also meet Susan’s and Michael’s definition of transcending print. But I guess they had to draw the line somewhere, and what they cover they do so with accuracy and insight.

Meanwhile elsewhere, anyone who read this or this about Nature‘s open peer review trial can rest assured that it’s NOT true. We haven’t made a decision about this yet. There’s been a recent uptick in coverage of our trial following an article (subscribers only) in the 14 September issue of the Wall Street Journal. Some others then reported this as a new initiative even though it’s now been going for almost four months. Matt Whipp went further and put it in the future tense, which Peter Suber seems to [have] interpreted as a scoop rather than a mistake.

I hope that both of them will accept this as the kind of constructive feedback that we’re looking for in the peer review trial. 😉 This will draw to a close at the end of September, so if you want to get involved go there now. We’ll make a decision about what, if anything, to do next once the trial is over. Then we’ll let you know. Promise.

Susan West and Michael Gold at Content Wise have a good summary of some of our online activities.

They really focus on our social software initiatives, which are definitely a central part of what we’re doing. I would have added databases and podcasting, which are both very important and rapidly growing areas for us. They also meet Susan’s and Michael’s definition of transcending print. But I guess they had to draw the line somewhere, and what they cover they do so with accuracy and insight.

Meanwhile elsewhere, anyone who read this or this about Nature‘s open peer review trial can rest assured that it’s NOT true. We haven’t made a decision about this yet. There’s been a recent uptick in coverage of our trial following an article (subscribers only) in the 14 September issue of the Wall Street Journal. Some others then reported this as a new initiative even though it’s now been going for almost four months. Matt Whipp went further and put it in the future tense, which Peter Suber seems to [have] interpreted as a scoop rather than a mistake.

I hope that both of them will accept this as the kind of constructive feedback that we’re looking for in the peer review trial. 😉 This will draw to a close at the end of September, so if you want to get involved go there now. We’ll make a decision about what, if anything, to do next once the trial is over. Then we’ll let you know. Promise.