Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, Alexander Walther, and Diana Deca have published "An Emerging Consensus for Open Evaluation: 18 Visions for the Future of Scientific Publishing" in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.
Here's an excerpt:
A grand challenge of our time, therefore, is to design the future system, by which we evaluate papers and decide which ones deserve broad attention and deep reading. However, it is unclear how exactly OE [Open Evaluation] and the future system for scientific publishing should work. This motivated us to edit the Research Topic "Beyond open access: visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review" in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. The Research Topic includes 18 papers, each going beyond mere criticism of the status quo and laying out a detailed vision for the ideal future system. . . .
While each paper elaborates on particular challenges, the solutions proposed have much overlap, and where distinct solutions are proposed, these are generally compatible. This puts us in a position to present our synopsis here as a coherent blueprint for the future system that reflects the consensus among the contributors.1
