OA and Peer Review are two different, independent aspects of scientific publishing. I do not share Mr. Kröger's worry that we would be flooded with low quality material if all articles would go online. Rather, we keep the existing work flow intact but just replace the parts done by today's publishers by using an alternative publishing concept. Universities could share the costs to have a few people hired who process the selected articles, get them in shape layout-wise, and publish them online. The review process would stay the same.

The difference is not only in costs but mainly in (open) access. The university hired staff would also cost money but would not be profit-driven. But once published under a permissive, academic-friendly license, articles would be available without restrictions. Today, articles need to be bought on a per (digital) copy base long after the article has been published.

Finally two points of information: (1) 'CreativeCommons' is working on a version of their permissive (c)-licenses targeting an academic audience. The project is called "ScienceCommons" (http://science.creativecommons.org/). (2) With regard to software: There exist already several free, open source tools for online publishing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Publishers_and_publishing) that are ready to use.