Peer Review – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Deamiter]

The only problem I view this is some scientists may be competing with each other to get their paper published first. But I think a two fold system would be a pretty neat idea, especially with the internet being as widespread as it is.

There's always a rush to get published -- particularly when one's tenure depends on it (usually a submitted or even accepted paper is not good enough). However, any real debate over who published first is usually resolved by received dates, not published dates.

Of course, if your paper was received first, yet the same work is published even a month before yours, the community will forever remember them as the "first" even if you get official credit... Still, as papers generally go through at least two revisions, I don't see why one couldn't have concurrent open and peer-review.