At a further remove from the mild change in how reviewers are selected, is the call for what has been termed "collaborative e-publishing." Kairos's Cover Web project has been described as a "multi-vocal, multi-linear hypertext collaboratively written and reviewed for each issue of the journal" (Cindy Nahrwold, "A Call for Prototypes that Illustrate "Social Construction of Knowledge") As a part of this process, Kairos describes its peer review process as follows:
In the case of print-based publication, a few reviewers are signing their reviews, thereby facilitating contact with authors (though this is not the only reason for taking that action. Indeed, Blair, Brown and Baxter (1994) remind us of the suasory role of anonymity within the review process to maintain the "enabling mechanisms of a masculinist disciplinary ideology" (p. 383). Since their piece appeared in one of the central journals of our field, many have began to wonder if collaborative, rather than confrontational, writing should be at the heart of our efforts.
Kairos goes one step further in expecting interactive work between peers. The end result is still the responsibility of the author, but the open sharing of ideas creates a community in ways not accessible within the present tradition. As a "Collaborative Hypertext(ual) Peer Review Process," authors are invited to indicate who should review their work. The process begins with an "in-house review" that is similar to traditional procedures, in that the Editor and selected Board members discuss a given submission's potential for continued consideration. Once the piece passes this initial hurdle, the process is then opened, and reviewers suggested by the author are generally assigned to work with the author in finalizing the submission for publication. The reviewers names are listed along with the author's byline, thereby confirming the collaborative nature of the process. This takes us far from the pristine academic world Harnad inhabits.