I agree with your suggestion and would 100% welcome that process - though I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive. As I see it, the main difference

I agree with your suggestion and would 100% welcome that process - though I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive. As I see it, the main difference between the status quo and the more open process you suggest is that in theory reviewers that are hand-picked by the editor are more likely to have directly relevant experience, ideally translating to a better, and potentially more efficient review. Of course, that also comes with the drawbacks that you mentioned - that the reviewers are easily de-anonymized, and that they may be biased against your research since they're essentially competitors -- I've had the good fortune of not being negatively affected by this, but I have many colleagues who have not been so lucky. Edit: Also, to comment more on my own experience, I was lucky to be working in a well-established lab with a PI whose name carried a lot of weight and who had a lot of experience getting papers through the review process. We also had the resources to address requests that might've been too much for a less well-funded lab. I'm aware that this colours my views and didn't mean to suggest that peer review, or the publication process, are perfect. The main reason I wanted to provide my perspective is that I feel that on HN there's often an undercurrent of criticism that is levied against the state of scientific research that isn't entirely fair in ways that may not be obvious to readers that haven't experienced it first-hand.