[kurtosis]

I would Love it if referee reports were published with papers. Why waste all of the unpaid time and research of the referees by compressing their opinions into a yes/no/revise decision? This would improve the quality of the reports, and make the process of reading papers much easier. One of the most difficult parts of reading a paper is trying to decide for yourself if the methods or conclusions of the paper are flawed. The referee reports are a valuable counterpoint from people who probably know more about a topic than you do!

[albertcardona]

The Journal of Brain Research does that, and did so for decades. But there is a bias: only papers with good reviews are published. What happens to good papers with bad reviews is that they don't get published, or get published elsewhere.