If the authors disagree with the journals team, or just get tired of waiting, they can still publish at any time just like with community review. For authors who choose both, the journal's team and community reviewers can interact with each other just as in normal community review.
I think it's a way to provide a stepping stone for people from the existing system towards full community review and would provide logistics to those organizing open journals with teams of high quality reviewers.
The plan is to implement it during the closed beta period. I would welcome feedback on this concept as well :)
I suck at naming - Peer Review was a working title intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek (similar to StackOverflow). But... because I suck at naming, it is, of course, a little on the nose. So far I haven't come up with anything better.
To toss a few names in the hat, off the top of my head: - openresearch - colab - openjournal - stud.io
Probably collect a few ideas and run a small survey for the initial audience
Automated reviewer matching won’t be good enough to find decent reviewers.
I would suggest partnering with people in very specific disciplines who want to break away and establish open access journals, but want to focus on the editor and review process rather than the logistics (which you provide).