I want to be positive about the journal, I really do. Philica appears to take everything, and I like that. Even if it means a ridiculous paper on Intelligent Design in the Philosophy section. They also have open reviews, and I like that too. To an extent. The problem is that the reviews come after publication and when they arrive the publication is fixed. Some of the articles would have been so much better if they’d been reviewed before being published. The reviews come from bona-fide professional researchers, who are also often authors. So often the credibility of the reviews can be associated with the credibility of the reviewer’s own research. It’s a good idea. Or at least it will be if it can attract credible reviewers.