In my (very limited) experience there are still large differences in the quality of the reviews. As researchers do this basically on the side and for free, the

In my (very limited) experience there are still large differences in the quality of the reviews. As researchers do this basically on the side and for free, the amount of time they devote to a review varies greatly depending on their time budget and motivation. While some reviewers seem to go through the paper character by character and point out even the tiniest flaws, others are contend with a superficial reading and miss even glaring mistakes. I'd say publishing the reviews is good because it allows you to see how much effort went into the review process. It will also (anonymously) shame the second type of reviewer into being more thorough, which I think is also good. As a side note, I think articles should all be available for free and the work of the reviewers should be compensated or appreciated somehow. Publishing reviews with the reviewers names (only for people that want it) can help to create such appreciation, because it is a lot of work.