One idea that I don’t want us to lose from yesterday was the idea that a fraud/plagarism/quakery check need not be the responsibility of any one person. Yes, there’s likely an automated step to check for plagarism, but, after that, having a preprint randomly sent to, say, 5-10 people with the option of clicking a “report abuse option” (and then enter what kind of abuse) may well prove to be as efficient at culling bad items out of a preprint literature as any.

That, and it allows for an alternative archive of bunk. Which can be fairly useful, particularly when one wants to cite that a certain “point” is actually garbage, as it were.

My talk at UKSG where I talk about how I actually solved a series of research information problems: http://river-valley.tv/the-transformation-is-already-here-%E2%80%93-its-just-unevenly-distributed/

Lots of discussion of personal experience but this is necessarily biased. There is a lot of research on how readers actually take in literature, how long they are reading for, and what their purpose has also been, in large part by Carol.

Tenopir, C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu A U, Wu L, Manoff M, Read E, Frame M.  2011.  Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE. 6(6)

Tenopir, C, Allard S, Bates B, Levine KJ, King DW, Birch B, Mays R, Caldwell C.  2011.  Perceived Value of Scholarly Articles. Learned Publishing. 24:123-132.

Tenopir, C, Mays R, Wu L.  2011.  Journal Article Growth and Reading Patterns. New Review of Information Networking. 16(1):4-22.

Tenopir, C, Wilson CS, Vakkari P, Talja S, King DW.  2010.  Cross country comparison of scholarly e-reading patterns in Australia, Finland and the United States. Australian Academic & Research Libraries (AARL). 41(1):26-41