[bryanrasmussen]

>Wide distribution of scientific information no longer requires scientific publishers.

Wide and voluminous distribution of bad information requires filters to extract the good, peer review has some form of filtering functionality, although I wouldn't say it is great I think it would probably be better than the filter that a Facebook or Twitter of Science would provide (or just Facebook or Twitter if you don't like the 'of science' locution)

[thayne]

I think having a public forum for publishing and reviewing is valuable, and then having journals or something similar, that produces curated selection of published science based on that public review.