In preparation for class today I also tried to participate in one of the on-line peer review experiments.  I chose the work about piracy in the music business, a topic I am very interested in personally.  I found the template and software very easy to use but I think the major problem with this type of open peer-review, as Fitzpatrick highlights in her work, is a lack of incentive for scholars to participate.  I was the only person who had commented on the page I chose to review and certainly would not have known about the project had it not been for this class.  As someone passionate about music and technology, I would have loved to read more of the manuscript and wish I would have had a way of knowing about the project.  I would think there are others out there who would also be interested in this topic to the point that they would want to provide feedback and comments.  However, I think this open peer-review system is plagued by a lack of exposure or publicity, if you will, which prevents it from being successful.  Not sure how other peer-review projects work, but I felt like I couldn’t really provide a lot of in-depth or significant feedback since I was only able to read the opening few paragraphs of one chapter.  Does it usually work that way?  It seems like it would be difficult to get worthwhile feedback unless you provided readers with more substantive parts of the manuscript.