Erik Sandewall, INTERNET:ejs@IDA.LIU.SE opines:

[snip]

> I certainly agree with you that an explicit decision about acceptance
> by a respected group of senior scientists in the area of the contribution
> is a necessary component of the system, and that that decision must be
> preceded by confidential review. The issue for us is how to reduce the
> present load, or overload on the reviewing system.

I feel that the basic problem here is the removal of a part of the
communications system from the research community and then to try to
understand economic relationships. The main cost of journal communications
is on the reader according to studies reported by Donald W. King and
others. These estimates, by the way, do not contemplate the cost of
research wasted as a result of inadequate preparation. The proposed system
fails to deal with this issue.

The most economic way to reduce that cost of readings is to provide
authoritative reviews, digests, compendia, abstracts, indexes, etc. It is
also probably the most economic way to increase productivity of
investments involving expenditures 10 to 100 times the cost of critical
information. It should be well worth while to pay qualitied authors to
write and edit reviews -- not the other way around.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
70244.1532@compuserve.com