Blog of Jonathan A. Eisen, Professor at U.C. Davis.
In one way, the physicists were way ahead of biologists in terms of open access, as arXiv shows. On the other hand, the model of arXiv is very different from open access biological collections such as PubMed Central or open access publishers like PLoS-- physicists submit things to arXiv *before* submitting them to a peer reviewed journal -- in some cases, the comments received on arXiv are all the peer review a paper gets -- and yet physicists feel comfortable citing a paper on arXiv. I realize that being peer reviewed isn't a magical guarantee of correctness, but I'm glad open access in the biological world has kept it.
I am not so sure we cannot mix and match. I think in the long run, one could have preprint servers like arXiv and also do full peer review. The preprint server would serve as a way of setting priority and communicating information early on, and then peer review would serve to say what the quality of the stuff is.
Tree of Life is the spotlight blog on the fairly new UC Davis blogs page http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/ -- and, thanks to Jonathan, the blogs list is longer with more science blogs, including one from Mario Pineda-Krch, a theoretical ecologist.