一直以来有个理想就是，所有文章开放获取，开放评审，所有审稿意见公开。

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 after the refereeing round is closed).

这里有我原来一个同事Eoin Quinn正在审理中的稿子。做物理的可以看看审稿人意见和他的回复：

https://scipost.org/submission/1512.00261v3/

https://scipost.org/submission/1512.00261v2/#comment_id  

这里有发表出来的第一个文章：

https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.1.1.001/pdf  

作者是颇有名气的牛人。对SciPost投稿，必须先放到arxiv，然后把arxiv链接发过去。

这里有处在投稿阶段的文章：

https://scipost.org/submissions/

发现了很多牛人！

他们开放评审的理由是：

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.

不知道那些想发prl，但是被审稿人虐的人是否会有共鸣。

现在看来，中国人因为傻逼的论文分区制度，在科技出版上又会落后。