Publications that use public review I sometimes find that the reviews I get on papers I submit to various high-impact journals are of surprisingly questionable quality. I typically get the impression that reviewers only read a paper in a cursory fashion, make rash assumptions, and hence make comments that are actually not relevant to the content. Or they might make unreasonable comparisons, along the lines of 'we know fusion works in principle, so why should one bother with research on photovoltaic cells '. I think this is a great waste of precious time and resources. I know that some journals use a public review system (https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html), and I'm convinced that more accountability will incentivise reviewers to do a better job. I'm interested in hearing about others people's experiences with this system (does it work?), and if there is an easy way (such as a list) to find publications that use this system (how do I find them?).
I don't think there are many journals that currently use public peer review, so it's unlikely that there's a list of them. The most well-known journal that does this, I think, is F1000Research, which also powers Wellcome Open Research and Gates Open Research.