Open publishing has the potential to create better published, scientific results. It is possible to publish all scientific results on the internet at very low cost. Publishing does not ensure quality. The current peer review system does not ensure quality. An internet peer review system will not ensure quality.

Publishing has become an end and a requirement in some professions. The criterion for publishing has become statistical significance. Statistical significance is an exceedingly low hurtle that is easily surmounted by manipulation and choice of statistical test. Publishing has become meaningless. There is not a need for more publishing. There is a need for quality publishing.

I propose a simplistic system for quality, open publishing.

Establish the rules for acceptance:

• A clear statement of intent
• A clear statement of necessary results that will demonstrate the outcome
• A clear statement of background and assumptions
• Presentation of all data and calculations
• A thorough discussion of methods, equipment, and procedures such that the result can be replicated
• A clear statement of the conclusion that shows the result met the requirements for demonstration

The proposed publication is submitted to an editorial board comprising voluntary editors with knowledge and experience in the field (editor may be selected by the author).

The publication is posted for open peer review. Reviews are posted after approval by the editor, author and reviewer.

Author responds to review.

Peer review continues until editor and author are satisfied.

Publication moves to final posting.

Publications can be expanded at a later date following the same process and the revised publication posted with appropriate back and forward references.

It can increase the speed of publication at  much reduced cost! But speed should not compromise the quality. In many cases, it is happening! Regarding the speeding up of discoveries, definitely the speed will increase but pressure to publish fast will increase which may affect the quality!

Joseph, I agree that quality is the primary factor.  Your outline of a viable process is very good.  I especially like the latter part where post (on line) review comes into play.  A print publication is almost set in stone.  A web publication can be in a constant state of polishing, correction, improvement, the addition of new findings, etc.  And thanks to technology this can occur daily!

Riaz, I had not thought about the reduced cost of digital publishing compared to print publications.  I fear that you are right that increased speed in publication will result in increased pressure to publish quickly.  Publishing could become a race or contest over quantity reducing quality to a secondary consideration.  Technology can speed up the publication process but the preparation process requires peer review and peers are humans who require time to do their work (but hopefully not too much time!).

Interesting, Radek.  I wonder if on-line conferences (if they don't publish the conference contributions themselves) could be linked to appropriate on-line journals in some way.  The on-line conference papers could be ranked, discussed, reviewed, etc. and the paper and the feedback would be provided to the on-line journal.  With feedback from the conference participants the journal editor(s) could better gauge if the paper should be published.  And the journal editors wouldn't need so many peer reviews done since some of that would be already accomplished by the conference participants. My, technology certainly is changing the way things are done in academia and other areas of society!!

Why is there an issue with scientific publishing?

This could be a research project unto its own, step back from the computer write a hypotheses, formulate a plan and project, get someone  to fund it and now you are on your way.

Discovery does take time and the digital revolution in my opinion has nothing to do about discoveries, I do not quite understand exactly what you are asking but if the researcher were to step back and either rethink what they are searching for or reformulate the inquiry then they will quickly discover. Remember the answer is easy if you understand the question this is where you could find your enlightenment.  

The term "discoveries" as used in the question covers all aspects of the process from idea to diffusion (diffusion assuming that the process yields viable results), as opposed to the more limited "he discovered a gold mine."  "The answer is easy if you understand the question" is a platitude of little value in serious inquiry.