I did not mean the existing scihub site, but simply something that would be github for science. It seemed to me amusing to reference scihub in the name, but unfortunately looks like it is confusing, and diverts attention from the content of my comment, which is that publishing paper should be similar to publishing a repository on github, and reviewing should be like reviewing pull requests.

That sounds like arXiv.

arXiv doesn't provide a way to review, comment, or rate papers which is needed to replace journals by a better process.