I'll apply as a reviewer for OIP. Let me also suggest that you contact HBD Chick for a position as a reviewer for OBG.

Davide has asked Gerhard Meisenberg to join as a reviewer. He'd be good for both ODP and OBG. Perhaps contact the full gamut of HBD bloggers (Malloy, Audacious Epigone, JayMan, etc).

I can be a reviewer for Open Differential Psychology. I already posted one review.

One problem with OP is that most (if not all) reviewers have an "hereditarian side". I would like to see reviewers hostile to the genetic theory. Otherwise, people may think OP looks like a Mankind Quarterly bis. I have nothing against MQ, if there is no conflict of interest or something of this sort, but it's clear most people won't see it like this. What's more, concerning Fuerst, Dalliard or myself, it's worse, see we co-blog on Human Varieties, and either one of us reviewing the other... that looks weird. Obviously, you'll say that because the reviews are open, everyone can see what is happening. If an hereditarian like me does not accept a publication from another hereditarian, no one will accuse me of anything. But each time I accept, they will suspect something from me, no matter how thorough and how deep my argumentations and justifications are.

I was planning to contact some authors later. I just need to find the right timing. That does not mean they will come here, subscribe and post comments. But at least, i will try, and makes clear my opinion for the need of having reviewers with both sides of opinions.

The process of reviewers' appointment is not clearly defined. Of course as editors we had to select some reviewers to get the journal started, but the process for selection of future reviewers should be more democratic in order to reduce editorial selection bias.
I propose that reviewer selection should proceed like this:
The candidate will open a thread titled "I apply to become reviewer for OBG/ODP" and will defend his/her case (attach CV, publications, etc). He/she becomes a reviewer once 3 existing reviewers will approve.

Generally, when I publish something here, I always have in mind to invite others who know something about the subject of interest. If they come here, good. If they don't answer, there is nothing I can do. I have contacted several authors, e.g., Rindermann, Thompson, Beaver, Kaplan, etc. for papers not published by me. Only Rindermann and Kaplan replied. The first said he will look at it (but I don't know what he was referring to because in the same mail I sent him my data on racial gaps in NAEP...) and Kaplan, as you know, refused to reply because OP attracts somewhat hereditarians.

In the article I have published on the black-white changes in GSS wordsum over time, I have emailed lot of people. No one has commented on it (although I got some replies, these are not "comments"). I will continue, however. Because there is nothing to lose. And it's better to communicate his ideas this way. When there is an occasion, I always invite people to review.

Perhaps this journal does not have enough "prestige" to persuade scholars to be reviewers. I think it's the most likely reason.

----

EDIT: October 12, 2014

For those who wants to know what happened to my former pseudonym, I have asked Emil to change it. The email reads :

Is it possible to change my pseudonym "menghu1001" into "Meng Hu" ?

I have the feeling that most scholars will not appreciate being reviewed by pseudonyms, and menghu1001 sound like a pseudonym. Although people her do what they want, it's clear that fewer pseudonyms would have more credibility. For the journal especially.

Chuck asked me to apply for being OBG reviewer, and specifically for his paper The Nature of Race. He said I wasn't on the list of OBG reviewers. I didn't notice that until now. This is odd because 1) I have the status of OBG under my pseudonym 2) I have already approved several OBG papers and no one said anything to me about that. What should I do ? Do I need to apply for "The Nature of Race" (Fuerst, 2015) ?

EDIT : I realize now that nooffensebut has the status of OBG under his pseudonym and yet he doesn't appear on the list of OBG reviewers.

Chuck asked me to apply for being OBG reviewer, and specifically for his paper The Nature of Race. He said I wasn't on the list of OBG reviewers. I didn't notice that until now. This is odd because 1) I have the status of OBG under my pseudonym 2) I have already approved several OBG papers and no one said anything to me about that. What should I do ? Do I need to apply for "The Nature of Race" (Fuerst, 2015) ?

EDIT : I realize now that nooffensebut has the status of OBG under his pseudonym and yet he doesn't appear on the list of OBG reviewers.

Yes I confirm you're reviewer for OBG. What counts is the status under the pseudonymn, the list is just for information purposes I think.

As OP will need to expand its reviewers board and increasingly rely on external reviewers, it is important that criteria for approval of reviewer status be outlined.
Policies adopted by other open review (alas, not many of those) journals could be used as a guideline. For example, f1000 Research adopts this policy:
"When selecting peer reviewers, authors must apply the following criteria:
1)Scientific expertise: Referees must have demonstrated expertise in the key topics of the study presented and/or the methods used. They must have published as lead authors at least 5 articles in international journals.
2)Level of experience: Referees must have a formal appointment at PhD or MD level or higher at a recognised institution or organization.
3)Independence: Referees must not be working at the same institute as the authors, should not be close collaborators of the authors or in other ways personally, financially or professionally associated with them. Referees must declare any conflicts of interest on the published report."
I personally agree with points 1 and 3 but not with point 2, as I do not think that a PhD is a necessary condition to be an expert in a topic. I would add to point 3 that referees cannot have co-authored a paper with the reviewer in the last 2 years, as this is a less generic and more objective criteria than being a "close collaborator".
I would like to hear your opinion on this issue and maybe reach an agreement so that an official policy can be implemented.