My experience of papers that went to top tier journals is that the peer reviews were detailed, interesting and clearly from people who knew what they were talki

My experience of papers that went to top tier journals is that the peer reviews were detailed, interesting and clearly from people who knew what they were talking about. They were also somewhat harsh and demanding. It is almost certainly the case that these reviewers would not expend the same effort on a platform like this. They review papers in Nature etc becuase they feel that they are participating in something important, at the cutting edge of science. They also, somewhere along the line, feel that doing such reviews will improve their chances of publishing there. Additionally Nature will offer some reviewers the chance to write an editorial about the article they reviewed. These are strong incentives that successfully coerce busy people. How will you replicate this? What can happen with these open peer review platforms is that they attract 'hyperreviewers' of dubious quality. This can be seen with publons. Look at the top ranked peer reviewer there: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/1217819/kaveh-ostad-ali-askari/metrics/ https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/1217819/kaveh-ostad-al..., who apparently reviewed 1352 articles in 2021. Perhaps this person is actually carefully reviewing 5 articles every working day of the year... then again perhaps not.