Lodewijk, Sydney, Hilda, I think I'm going to need lots of support to pull this off. BMJ are not publishing the reviewed version - we are, by pointing to the relevant diff in the article's history. I'd like us to offer the reader a much nicer presentation of the reviewed article than that, which means Wikimedia hosting a "fair copy" (like normal articles published on publishers' websites).
I'd also like us to point the reader to a diff between the reviewed version and the current version that doesn't have all the wiki markup - basically a diff that the average reader will easily parse.
This will only happen if we can demonstrate solid support from the Wikipedia med community.
I intend outlining this at the conference, if I get a slot in the Sunday afternoon unconference. I don't suppose you guys might be able to drop everything and turn up at the inaugural Wikipedia Science Conference in London on 2-3 September, is there? :o)
I've just come out of the second teleconference with fellow WPMEDF board member Jake Orlowitz, and Fiona Godlee and Peter Ashman of BMJ.
BMJ has offered to provide expert peer-review of up to 10 of our medical articles. We can choose the articles and can submit them at our own pace. I'll post the details at English Wikipedia's Wikiproject Medicine talk page on Monday or Tuesday - I'm very busy the next 48 hours. Have a great weekend everyone.
--