About the manuscript as a whole:

This lengthy manuscript promises to be a thorough review of the literature. Because of this promise, it seems very attractive at first sight, because good reviews on the subject are in fact needed. However, the aim of the study is revealed only in the middle of the abstract. And the reader, unfortunately, doesn't have an idea of how the study was structured or conducted. The authors should state early on what it is about and what type of review is that.

The title suggests a paper based on opinion, a narrative review. We can't understand if it is a systematic review, an observational study or an editorial piece. The authors should add the study design to the title.

The research question is unclear. What we sense from beginning the reading is that the authors decided to produce a broad, unfocused review on the subject. But what response were they trying to get? They should add that question to the paper. Did they have one?

As it is not a question-driven review (as far as we can get from the text), it is also difficult to have an idea of what are its contributions to the field, even if, when reading the whole paper, we feel that we have learned something -- but what? Piecemeal. The lack of a question makes it difficult to evaluate originality and the real contribution of this paper in terms of new evidence. Please, add the research question.

They do review the field extensively -- albeit not systematically nor exhaustively, as they did recognise after the second round of review of their paper by the journal and in the paper itself. Reference list seems comprehensive and up-to-date, because it included recent papers, but we don't know if anything was missed, because the authors did not present their search strategy. This kind of review (narrative, compared to systematic) is highly subject to selection bias. Therefore, although apparently comprehensive, we do not know if it was really so.

The conclusions span six paragraphs and bring references to other studies. Therefore, they are not the authors' conclusions, but only final remarks. We do not know what the authors' conclusions could be. They are difficult to follow, and they do not show what future research projects should address. The authors should rewrite the conclusions.

I believe this excessively long paper should undergo in-depth editing, for the sake of readers.

Specific comments:

The introduction of this paper is poor and conflicting. The authors first state that they would address "peer review in the context of manuscript selection for scientific research articles, with some initial considerations of other outputs such as software and data". Then, in the end of the introduction section, they state the objectives as " investigate the historical evolution in a socio-technological context". And then they add a second objective that is very difficult to understand, dealing with " consumer social web platforms combined to create an optimised peer review model"... they state that they will propose a model of peer reviewing. A very daring objective, especially considering what they really offer with their paper.

The authors could summarise the introductory sentences to get to the point earlier. The authors state that they have "examined the functionality" of web platforms, but they do not give us a clue on how they did that. I really would like to know how many platforms there are, what are their names and how did they examine them. The methods are not clear. We don't know what they found, only what they concluded based on what they found, which are different things.

Even as a narrative review, it could have given the reader an idea about the process used to select the papers reviewed. But there is nothing about that anywhere. There seems to be no process for the selection of the studies they examined, nor an inclusion criterion. Without a question, how could they design inclusion/exclusion criteria for the papers and the process of review? As a narrative review not based on a systematic search, this work might shed some light on the subject of peer review history, but it does not have a point to show, new evidence or something new.

With such a large byline of authors "working collectively" it is indeed difficult to believe there is any standardised criterion for the selection of the papers.

I am particularly worried about the tone of some sentences. They seem not to be based on facts, but on opinions, such as this: "In the last several decades, and boosted by the emergence of Web-based technologies, there have been substantial innovative efforts to decouple peer review from the publishing process (Figure 2; Schmidt & Görögh (2017)), and the ever-increasing volume of published research." How can peer review dissociate itself from publication? These opinion-based sentences are all over the manuscript. We suggest the authors review them.

There seems to be a problem with the organisation of the paper sections. Subjects like open x close peer review, technical aspects of peer review, quality control and historical information are all mixed in the same section. This is confusing for the reader. Items 3.4. and 3.9. both deal with peer review of software. Why are they separated? The organisation of the manuscript's contents as a whole is bad, and the repetition of concepts, statements, and analyses make the reader get tired early.

Figure 2 is quite confusing: as all the events are of the same colour, and as there are many, the reader cannot understand what began when. The authors should consider the journal's graphic style and rebuild the figure in a comprehensible way.

The pink box in Figure 3 seems to be out of place. Please, double check this.

The results section of this paper is unfocused and badly organised. Subjects are mixed together under the same subsection, and not always the subtitles really reflect what the part deals with. There seems to be a repetition of concepts, statements, and analyses make the reader get tired early.

Figures have problems. Figure 1 shows that the first issue of Philosofical Transactions and ​of the Journal des Sçavans were published in the same year, 1650. Is this right? Is this intentional? We begin to suspect it is not when we see Figure 2, which is highly confusing: as all the events are of the same colour, and as there are many, the reader cannot understand what began when. Maybe it is not the authors' fault, as papers generally go through a standard page design by the editor house. Still, they approved this proof as is, and Figures 1 and 2 might be misleading. In Figure 3, there is a pink box about external post-publication commenting which should not apply to traditional peer reviewing... but it does in the graphical display of this picture. Figure 4 is OK.

Table 1 seems to be the copy of tables already published. The authors should check and cite references.

Table 2 is not clear regarding the criteria of the line ordering: why is pre-peer review commenting before pre-publication (closed), which is more common and traditional? It does not seem to be a chronological nor an alphabetical order. What is it? In Table 3 this order seems much more reasonable and logical. In Table 4, the word "All" in the second line is unclear.

I suggest the authors address these questions both in text and tables and figures.

There is no discussion section in this paper. The manuscript as a whole is a huge, endless discussion. Besides, it is difficult to evaluate the discussion section of a paper if the objectives of the study are not clear.