The SciPost seems to be a new publishing platform with rather unusual peer review procedure -- fully open. It means that names of authors/editors/referees are known to the public at any stage. My colleagues expressed an opinion that it cannot be productive. Therefore my question: can SciPost be considered a reliable and serious publisher competing with journals beyond the paywall?

  • There are other publishers and journals performing open peer-review, so this part is not new/unique. Commented Jun 28, 2018 at 9:38
  • The question in the title is not the same as the question you are asking. May I suggest editing so that they match? ;-)
    – Flyto
    Commented Jun 29, 2018 at 7:18
  • @Flyto Please, feel free to edit the post. I was hesitant to put "Can SciPost be considered a reliable venue?" in the title---it can be perceived as too opinionated. "What is SciPost?", however, calls for objective answers.
    – yarchik
    Commented Jun 29, 2018 at 13:05

2 Answers 2


In SciPost, the texts of the reviews are publicly available, but the reviewers can stay anonymous, and most of them do, as far as I can tell.

With 153 published articles so far, including by well-known authors such as Cardy, Verlinde, Rychkov, Seiberg, etc, it is clear that the journal has a good reputation among researchers. The challenge is now to become financially sustainable, while remaining free to authors and readers.

Another journal that practices a form of open peer review is PeerJ.


Only time will tell. It seems like an initiative supported by serious partners. In order for it to become successful, it will need a critical mass of interesting articles, and avoid serous mishaps. Whether that will happen is hard to predict.

  • Addionally, this highly depends on the scientists reading, reviewing, editing and publishing with SciPost. It's the community that decides whether it will work or not. Commented Jun 28, 2018 at 9:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .