OpenCon 2016

A lot of people (myself included) believe that we should fundamentally change the way that works of science are evaluated, with publication happening instantly and openly, and peer review occurring post-publication in an ongoing manner. Although we have been talking about this for decades, one of the reasons such systems haven't taken off yet is that we haven't really figured out what post-publication peer review should look like. What is the nature of the review? Who should be allowed to review (I say everyone but not all people agree)? Anonymous or not? Organized or free-wheeling? What kind of versioning should there be? And most importantly, what do we have to do to get people to actually switch to a post-publication peer review world?