刚刚收到原来同事的邮件，原来最近有个新期刊SciPost上线了。这个期刊的审稿过程是公开的，虽然只是审稿意见公开，审稿人依然可以选择匿名。作者的回复也是公开的。尤其值得肯定的是，发表是免费的！貌似创办人是颇有名气的物理学家Prof. dr Jean-Sébastien Caux。
The contents of Reports are publicly viewable, but the author of the Report can choose public anonymity (which is then known to Editors only). Authors are informed by email if a Report or a Comment on their paper is vetted through and published online (authors are welcome to respond, but should not feel obliged to do so before the refereeing round is closed).
Moreover, the refereeing process currently used in most journals cannot call itself `open': a few editorially-selected referees are consulted, their reports are often not peer-verified in any way, and the editorial decision is mostly taken behind closed doors. One consequence is that refereeing work, despite representing a substantial investment in time and effort to the scientists who perform it, remains more or less completely uncredited. Applied here, the idea of openness calls for at least two improvements. First: giving the possibility to professional academics to provide pre-publication feedback on manuscripts, even if they have not been specifically invited to referee. Second: exposing the reports to the scrutiny of the community (not necessarily by removing anonymity: it is sufficient to make the report publicly accessible, though true openness ideally calls for signed reports). Some groundbreaking initiatives have clearly demonstrated the fact that the quality and the usefulness of the whole refereeing process is measurably enhanced by implementing more openness. It is natural to hope that habits will eventually change and these productive, efficient and quality-enhancing open methods be more generally implemented, because such changes are good for science.