Perhaps we add a discussion of open access as you pointed to Claudia. I am an information nerd with very little understanding for closed scholarly information, as this goes directly against scholarly communication. Closed ranks, as you call it, belongs the many mistakes we done in the University world. Now with the advent of the Internet, we have the power to correct that mistake.

As a researcher on open access, it is really refreshing for me to see open peer review discussed without any reference to open access at all (although I do admit I would have loved to see this concept discussed in one way or another, but it is fine for me as it stands, this really comes as a nice surprise). In a similar vein, your statement “Publishing is everything from making a bookmark in Delicious to commenting on a blog article to writing long articles or books.” {21.} makes me wish we could discuss online in a multiparty dialogue immediately. So I particularly welcome that: “In a later version of the journal we might integrate a wiki system, which means it will be easier to comment directly in the article itself.” {31.} But let me first stick to doing an article review in the way that has been provided for at this stage.

The article title saying “From Control to Networks…” seems to suggest that there is no control in networks. Are you really intending a conceptual opposition of this kind? If you are, I guess, an explanation should be included in your article on why you think this is so. Otherwise, an alternative title might read something like “From closed ranks to open networks in …”

Whatever kinds of claims are raised as to launching anything that calls itself “open”, this article, too, would benefit talking about exclusionary practices that I suppose go along with every new policy, be such practices intentional or not. Please consider a statement like “Anyone could join this community” {21.}. Maybe this just seems strange because neither the authors nor their current reviewer are actually native speakers of English. I think vis-a-vis poor internet lines and all, it might be fairer to say that the editors wish to foster a working community which “Everyone *may* join”. As far as I can see, it then is a different issue if someone *can* join.
This may also in fact be due to English, since, no doubt, it is a “lingua franca” only for those who know it. Let me explain this comment by saying that I guess our research colleagues in e.g. Latin America, Arabian speaking countries and China will keep doing well without English, with those of us who are ignorant of Spanish, Arabic and/or Chinese certainly losing out on a lot of current research in their fields. So while I hope I *may* join any of their open review projects, I am sure I for my part am not able to, unfortunately.

My last-but-one remark goes to say that, in this article, I would appreciate more consistent referencing throughout.

However, all in all I like the gentle way in which the reader is made familiar with concepts like Research 2.0. and open peer review, how academic norms are being put into the limelight – for review –, and I think the way in which IJFT is being introduced as an outcome of this challenging frame of mind is done very well.

All of this feels very agreeable and it sounds like a very nice invitation indeed. So: Congratulations on the launch of this experiment! Lena and Peter, may you find plenty of evidence that it was more than worth while giving all of this a full-hearted try. Over to the reviewers!