Making peer-review publishing process in academia more transparent

This is how I am trying to change the rotten world of academic publishing, one step at the time! Whenever I get an invitation to review or referee the scientific paper, I send the Editor of a journal the following reply.

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much recognizing my expertise in the field with the request to review or referee the submitted paper. In response, I require your further approval should you agree with the following conditions of mine:

1. I will make myself known as a reviewer to the authors of the submitted paper. My philosophy is against anonymous and irresponsible refereeing process.

2. I will NOT make a decision whether the submitted work is suitable for publication or not. I believe it is editor's job and responsibility to decide. I am tired of useless and unjustified statements like these: "In my opinion, the manuscript lacks significant new physics, therefore I propose to reject it". However, I will only provide my unbiased, fact or reference supported statements on the technical aspects of the paper as well as on the clarity of conveyed message(s). Hopefully, this will make Editor's decision easier.

3. I will use all the communication and content that I created myself during reviewing process on my public personal blog. I believe that all reviewers should stand behind their statements and they should defend them in public if necessary.

If you still wish my help, please notify me about your consent,

Sincerely,
Almantas.