Thanks for the thoughts, which closely describe the Frontiers journal reviewing model.

I worry that this approach simply delays the concerns I have with open review. Kickbacks still a factor, for example. And posted reviews offer a database of reviewers and reviews I can mine to find "soft" reviewers for my next submission. Too cynical, I realize, but I think better to prevent such possibilities altogether.

Anonymous review efforts can also be added to a CV, so I'm not convinced there is a clear benefit there.