Calling it peer review suggests gatekeeping. I suggest no gatekeepind just let any academic post a review, and maybe upvote/downvote and let crowdsourcing handle the rest.
>>naaski+(OP)
While I appreciate no gatekeeping, the other side of the coin is gatekeeping via bots (vote manipulation).
Something like rotten tomatoes could be useful. Have a list of "verified" users (critic score) in a separate voting column as anon users (audience score).
This will often serve useful in highly controversial situations to parse common narratives.
>>staple+q3
I'm not sure anonymous users should be able to join. Arxiv's system of only allowing academic users seems fine for this, although exceptions could be made for industry researchers.