Darryl McAdams sends me this link from the American Statistical Society. It discusses a possible rather attractive alternative to the traditional academic publishing regime. In particular, it explores how the suppleness of the blog format might be used to enhance dissemination of novel results and improve the quality of discussion by encouraging useful critical commentary. The contrast between Jane 2.0 and her unfortunate 1.0 avatar is striking. The latter is disadvantaged in myriad ways: she is cut off from interesting peer commentary, has to wait an excessively long time for reviews, is limited to submission to one journal at a time and only gets her work widely read if published. Jane 2.0 is far better off in virtually every respect. A further benefit of 2.0 is that it re-empowers the community that does most of the work: the research community that reviews the papers and which cares about the work (as opposed to the publishing houses that are mainly interested in turning a profit). I think that open source journals are where academic publishing is (and should be) heading. Jane 2.0 seems like an attractive alternative to what we have now. I say this knowing full well that the utopian vision 2.0 describes will surely engender problems of its own.