Enjoying thoughts from others on changing publishing into something that is more active/effective. Hoping with our open projects to demonstrate some of these ideas in practice soon - in particular the idea that a paper is posted early (arXiv style) for commenting (Stackexchange style, +Ian Holmes ) and an improved copy is submitted for publication, at which point it is finally peer-reviewed and set as a static object that can be referenced. Eventually that last step will be unnecessary, but easy does it. In fact this is exactly what we did (http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001260) but we received no comments on the paper from outside the group before publication, so we didn't demonstrate the cycle.

The crucial element is how to manage reputation and how to ensure people contribute. To prevent prestigious people using it as a means of confirming prestige without actively contributing, and to allow those with little formal prestige (but who are making quality contributions) to be recognised/rewarded. I think +Timothy Gowers originally suggested such a currency in editing papers - "You proof-read my paper for typos for x Open Dollars or I'll give you y Open Dollars if you provide a critical analysis". But any such system is complex and can't be defined in advance. Would be useful to set up a sandbox to play around with how this might work. In fact I'm assembling a review on a wiki with a couple of my students right now, which we could use as a case study, though I've not announced the existence of the paper to the relevant (chemical) community yet because we need a few more days to add more to the initial draft. See: http://openwetware.org/wiki/Todd:Catalytic%2C_Asymmetric_Pictet-Spengler_Reaction#The_Catalytic.2C_Asymmetric_Pictet-Spengler_Reaction
Shared publiclyView activity