Relevant to the recent discussion of open access publication (i.e. an arxiv for bio), http://www.biology-direct.com/ is a journal with an open process as well as open access. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this.
An article from Nature Peer Review on Biology Direct:
A snip from that discussion:
Systems: Reviving a culture of scientific debate
Nature (2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05005
Can 'open peer review' work for biologists? Biology Direct is hopeful.
The advent of immensely powerful means of communication in our information age offers unprecedented opportunities for experimentation with new approaches to scientific publishing. In an attempt to offer the scientific community an alternative to the current peer-review system, we recently launched a new journal, Biology Direct.
In Biology Direct, everything happens in the open: the authors select their own reviewers from the editorial board, and the reviews are not only signed but also published, alongside authors' responses, as an integral part of each article. The reviews can be critical or even outright negative. The only condition of publication is that three members of the Biology Direct editorial board become sufficiently interested in a submission to either review it themselves or to solicit a review from an outside expert. Conversely, a paper is rejected if and only if the author cannot get three reviews. Obviously, the authors can 'self-reject', that is, they can withdraw their manuscript if they are not comfortable publishing it having considered its reviews.
(more at the URL...)