I like the idea in principle, but it raises the bar for the quality of the review that is going to be published, and might thus discourage people from accepting to review papers. It is hard already as it is to find peer reviewers!
We're getting to the point where there really has to be a financial incentive to do a peer review (Springer gives you a free book, which is a start). If that were the case, I wouldn't mind doing it occasionally when I retire.
> We're getting to the point where there really has to be a financial incentive to do a peer review
IMHO, a free book is an insulting and scientists shouldn't accept to do this work for commercial publishers for free to begin with.
I know many people feel it's their responsibility to provide "services to the community" which is great, but it's ridiculous that commercial publishers get to profit from this when they proceed to claim ownership of academic work and hide it from the public behind a paywall.
If they want to make money off research, fine. But reviewing costs time and money. Academic publishing may well turn out to be not so profitable anymore if reviewers have to be paid. Maybe then we can finally move to university-hosted open-access publishing.
We're getting to the point where there really has to be a financial incentive to do a peer review (Springer gives you a free book, which is a start). If that were the case, I wouldn't mind doing it occasionally when I retire.