Peer review might be broken, but it's not anonymity that will fix it. For the simple reason that we already have double-blind reviews in many fields and the pee

Peer review might be broken, but it's not anonymity that will fix it. For the simple reason that we already have double-blind reviews in many fields and the peer reviewing process is not any less broken there. There are people who are thinking of multiple solutions, one that I think is interesting is the proposition of Open Scholar, dubbed "Independant Peer-Review". I submitted it to HN so we can discuss it without flooding this thread, if it interests HNers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8734271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8734271. In there scheme, the papers are open access from the beginning, the peer reviewing process is open, and reviews are citable. I believe it would encourage better and deeper reviews. It would also be very nice for young scientists or students who want to apply for a PhD grant to be able to show that they are able to write a comprehensive review of a paper in their field, and that their review was good enough to significantly improve the paper or to be selected by the authors and/or publishers to be released alongside the paper, for instance.