  Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions and
funders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In this
article, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating research
with journal rank. Following a well-defined notion of scientific value, we
introduce qualitative processes that can also be quantified and give rise to
meaningful and easy-to-use article-level metrics. In our approach, the goal of
a scientist is transformed from convincing an editorial board through a
vertical process to convincing peers through an horizontal one. We argue that
such an evaluation system naturally provides the incentives and logic needed to
constantly promote quality, reproducibility, openness and collaboration in
science. The system is legally and technically feasible and can gradually lead
to the self-organized reappropriation of the scientific process by the
scholarly community and its institutions. We propose an implementation of our
evaluation system with the platform "the Self-Journals of Science"
(www.sjscience.org).
