In a recent discussion at Machine Learning (Theory) blog the website called Faculty of 1000 (Biology) and Faculty of 1000 (Medicine) came up. It works as follows: users submit papers they like, and there is space for supporting and dissenting comments centered around the paper. This is the peer review as it should be done, not the opaque and time-consuming system currently in place with the journals.

As an example of a discussion, consider this example of one the highest rated papers, Why most published research findings are false. Do examine the negative reviews, or dissents, along with the response of the author.

What’s still missing from the Internet are instruments of identity, trust and renumeration, but they should be up and running in a few years. As for trust, needed for guaranteeing high-quality information, Faculty of 1000 does institute “section heads” and “faculty members” for different topic areas. As for renumeration, needed to keep the whole thing running, there seems to be some sort of a subscription model with the Faculty of 1000 that might lock people out of the system unless they are affiliated with a major institution. I wish this was integrated with the idea of the Public Library of Science open access model.