My concern was that their peer review model was opaque and worded strangely, and suggested that they don't follow the full procedure one expects at a peer-reviewed journal.
That paragraph reads a bit like it's intended for the public, which has no idea how peer review works and is subjected to publisher propaganda (e.g. "open access equals government censorship"—yes, really). Saying that they "involve the academic community" sounds like it's meant to reassure people who are being told that OA journals are somehow destroying peer review, or are, in fact, equivalent to Wikipedia.
I follow the open access movement fairly closely (for kicks; computer scientists are ahead of the curve here), and if there was anything seriously wrong with PLoS Medicine's process, I think I would have heard, even if it were only a chorus of "they suck but all the other OA journals are fine".
no subject
That paragraph reads a bit like it's intended for the public, which has no idea how peer review works and is subjected to publisher propaganda (e.g. "open access equals government censorship"—yes, really). Saying that they "involve the academic community" sounds like it's meant to reassure people who are being told that OA journals are somehow destroying peer review, or are, in fact, equivalent to Wikipedia.
I follow the open access movement fairly closely (for kicks; computer scientists are ahead of the curve here), and if there was anything seriously wrong with PLoS Medicine's process, I think I would have heard, even if it were only a chorus of "they suck but all the other OA journals are fine".