The MLA is not the only resource for the current discussion. Steven Harnad (1996), who edits an e-journal, Psycoloquy has written a number of articles, both in traditional print-based resources, and electronically, which address issues relevant to this discussion. Harnad's journal, it should be noted, is dedicated to publishing work related to the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. While he notes that "the [electronic] medium is still widely perceived as unfit for serious scholarship, more like a global graffiti board for trivial pursuit," it need not continue in this vein:
What Harnad, and others who believe traditional peer review is the only "viable alternative" have forgotten is their history. We did not always have peer review, yet earlier scholarship has remained valued. Prior to the creation of academic journals, intellectuals corresponded with other like-minded individuals - trading ideas, challenging interpretations and the like. In fact, it was not until the creation of societies in the mid-1600s, and the publication of serials such as the Transactions of the Royal Society in London (1665), that scholarship embarked on the road Harnad would now wish to name as the only road worth traveling (Don Schoeder, Electronic Publishing of Professional Articles: Attitudes of Academics and Implications for the Scholarly Communication Industry, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1994, 45, 73-100).
Assuming that one has arrived at the apex of a means or standard of judgment constrains the creative process. We are not claiming that peer review censors or delimits the expression of ideas. What we are claiming is that the standard model of peer review which Harnad sets up, wherein an Editor or Associate Editors select reviewers of submissions, is not the only model in use within the electronic environment, nor are these other models, by definition, deficient as they diverge from the standard procedure. For example, while Harnad's Psycoloquy does publish reviewer's reactions to an accepted piece as well as the author's response, along with the piece itself, this merely speeds up a process already in place within print journals. It has been standard practice among many journals to allow for critical responses (though not necessarily from the same person who reviewed the initial submission) and for authors of controversial pieces to respond to their critics. However, if one adopts the policy of Postmodern Culture, what happens to the standards? PMC regularly lists the articles/abstracts it is considering, and invites reviewers to select pieces they might be interested in evaluating. While the Editor still makes selections based on input, the approach increases the scope of potential reviewers. Broadening the list of those reviewing is one move that avoids a criticism that could be leveled at the "scholarly communication industry" as many reviewers serve multiple journals within the field (the first author of this piece is no exception) and inevitably see a manuscript reviewed and rejected for one journal sent to them again by yet another journal's editor.