In general, this discussion has been useful in highlighting the concept behind online journals (whether free access or otherwise), more traditional mediums of publication and varying objections to the editorial processes used. All three can form productive discussions in their own right, albeit inter-related.
There are additional points which I would like to raise. From a discussion I had a while ago with a former editor of Antiquity, the initial cost of moving from a printed format to one where you offer both printed and online, subscribed, issues is prohibitive for some journals. Antiquity, for example, was a late comer to online issue access due to funding and website infrastructure requirements needing to be met in that regard. Journals such as the Journal of African Archaeology and Sahara provide a list of contents of issues, but do not have the resources yet to become digital.
In essence, as discussed at the June 2006 meeting of the Society of Africanist Archaeologists, held in Calgary, there are a number of different online format and editorial models being trialled at present. It is difficult to predict which models will eventually fail and which will coalescence.
In moving onto issues of editorial practice, I think we are all aware of the pit falls inherent in peer-review and the statistical objections which have been raised to it, ironically in peer-reviewed journals. Many of us have experienced the frustration of a reviewer mis-reading or misinterpreting what was written. However, despite these continuing problems and politicking, no real viable and long-lasting alternative has been proposed in academia. Journals such as Internet Archaeology have proven that internet-based journals can be successfully peer-reviewed and flourish relatively well. Additionally, resources such as ScienceDirect and JSTOR are invaluable. The latter will shortly be making its African-oriented journals freely available to African educational institutions; this is a move which should be widely applauded.