I don't understand. What is the difference between post-publication peer review and no peer review? What is a journal for if the papers are not peer reviewed?
3) If review is passed, tag as reviewed and bundle all those into a special reviewed section (which can be cited)
4) Reserve the right to remove from reviewed (some later reviewer finds major flaws etc.)
You'd have to handle the dynamic nature of papers (git-like) but in essence I'm thinking of a website with "all submitted papers" and a checkbox for "reviewed papers only". I think that would be valuable and people would likely leave the checkbox on by default.
I'm also curious if the review has to be blind in this model. I think it would be more valuable if the reviewers actually signed with their names and the review feedback was open as well. Shifts the value from being in a prestigious journal to being successfully reviewed by a smart/reputable person. Ideally doing these reviews would then become reputation building as well.
It's not a journal, or it's a different kind of journal. I guess it would be like doing the whole review process in a very public way. Would that be worse? I don't know ... has anyone tried it?
I think we are heading that way anyway, the open access publishers are pushing the envelope here by making peer review more and more public (publishing reviewer names, or comments along with the paper).
1) Publish with no review
2) Open for review
3) If review is passed, tag as reviewed and bundle all those into a special reviewed section (which can be cited)
4) Reserve the right to remove from reviewed (some later reviewer finds major flaws etc.)
You'd have to handle the dynamic nature of papers (git-like) but in essence I'm thinking of a website with "all submitted papers" and a checkbox for "reviewed papers only". I think that would be valuable and people would likely leave the checkbox on by default.
I'm also curious if the review has to be blind in this model. I think it would be more valuable if the reviewers actually signed with their names and the review feedback was open as well. Shifts the value from being in a prestigious journal to being successfully reviewed by a smart/reputable person. Ideally doing these reviews would then become reputation building as well.