Reviewing process

1. Open review? (for example, often the case in Journal of Geophysical Research)
2. Single blind (reviewer remains unknown)?
3. Double blind (reviewer does not see the author's name, the author does not know the reviewer)?

I would rather vote for the classical #2 review.

As stated below, double-blind is impossible for an epijournal.

@vladislavayastrebo
I would also support also the #2 option. But I possibility to comment or discuss the paper on the website as in a social network would be great. I know that it exists as in
http://www.sjscience.org/

I like the idea of the academic social network. There are plenty of discussions going on on https://www.researchgate.net as well.
I guess we need a reference website like ArXiv so that discussions are centralized.

I would suggest a mix between 1 and 2.
Frontiers (http://home.frontiersin.org) uses the classical "2 reviewers", anonymous during the review process, but their name later appear (if they agree) on the paper first page! So reviewer have to be as fair as possible, and conflict of interest can be visible.
They also offer a "forum"-type of review process, and this is very interesting.

aussi peut etre eviter de recevoir des emails comme ca (bientot, on devra faire leur boulot a leur place, et en plus on se fera engueler....)

Dear Prof. Neukirch,

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately extending your review deadline to mid-July at this point is not ideal. If you had required an extension, we would have preferred to know when you initially agreed to review. We may grant you a week’s extension. At this point.

Sincerely,
Brian-- C-s--ch-
XXX Editorial Office

I wonder if the evaluation/reviewing process should not be paid for. Why always assume that it will be done for free by other researchers? A proper review is time consuming and requires access to references and maybe even a quick literature search to evaluate the novelty of the work. Who has dedicated time to do that?
So why not say that we want professional reviews and pay for it? A reviewer will then get a contract engaging him to do a good work.
Assuming a similar rate to EU proposal evaluation (~200 Euros/proposal), it will lead to 600 euros (editor + 2 reviewers) which is still cheaper than usual gold open access and you get a guaranty of effective review.

When they get hired by (mostly) universities, (academic) researchers/teachers agree on a few duties. One of them is to evaluate the work(s) of their peers. This is probably true that many reviews are currently not properly done. Getting a bonus for reviews might be an option. However, it has drawbacks. Unqualified reviewers might still accept to undertake reviews for the money. I am not sure that money is a condition for quality here. To be further discussed.

Yes, I agree with Mathias. The aim of our reviewing articles is also to make sure that the review process enable to let only the good quality research papers being published. I would fear that, when being professionalised, we might lost this requirement for the sake of making money... as usual...

Here is a long post on the topic:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/06/17/the-problems-with-credit-for-peer-review/