Here are a few recent stories that lead me to believe this might be true:
- Hypothes.is! A coalition of some of the world’s key scholarly publishers, platforms, libraries, and technology organizations are coming together to create an open, interoperable annotation layer over their content.
1 hour webcast on The Literary Anthology in the Age of Web Annotation
Comments from a blog by David Rosenthal: Annotation progress from Hypothes.is
- Commenting on PubMed: A Successful Pilot - PubMed Commons is no long beta
- New Feature on BHL: Add Comments to a Book
- Experiments with peer review continue: Transparent peer review at Nature Communications. Authors of papers submitted from January 2016 will be given the option to publish the peer review history of their paper.
- Bali, M. (2015). A new scholar's perspective on open peer review. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(8), 857-863. dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1085857 "This article argues that the pedagogical and scholarly benefits of open peer review far outweigh those of traditional double-blind peer review, but require a shift in our perspective of the function and value of peer review – from a gate-keeping process, toward a supportive, constructive process of collaboration between peers and mentors."