This article brings up many of the same old issues with "Impact Factor" and how it influences publishing which in turn influences funding and positions - so I won't bore you with rehashing that.
However, I'm still waiting for some real solutions to the problem that find the happy median between what I would call the majority rule democracy (100% open access non-peer reviewed) and the elite oligarchy (a few select choose the winners and losers) - both of which are no good for many reasons.
I agree that peer review must be part of the biological sciences publishing model, but perhaps with a twist. I don't really care who is submitting a paper for review, but i care greatly
who has reviewed the paper, what those reviews were, how they were responded to, and who put the final stamp of approval on it. I think greater transparency on the review process is what will bring about better published works in the end. I can fully support the open peer review process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review
). I truly believe the next wave of publishing scientists will whole-heartedly gravitate to a process like this instead of the current standard. People of this generation have no problems making their name and thoughts public, which I think is the biggest hurdle for yesteryear's generation (btw, "generation" in this context has less to do with numerical age, than with old vs. modern philosophies). I would love to make my reviews of articles public (if the journals would allow it). It would be useful for others to see criticism, and it would make me a better reviewer.
Think about it this way. If a work published in a non technical journal uses a highly technical application (for example, CyTOF) and I know that Gary Nolan reviewed that portion of the paper, I'm going to attribute a lot more credit to the validity of the results. Working in a technical field (Flow and Image Cytometry) I can't tell you how many times I come across suspect data and methods. It would be great for me to dive deeper into the review process so I could see if my questions were addressed, and possibly have a way to interact with the content post publication (a la Faculty of 1000).