This question was motivated by a recent submission of a perspective or opinion piece on the future of strongly correlated electron physics. None of our collections has that option, to publish something that is neither original research nor a comprehensive review, and also does not qualify as a lecture note. Should we allow or even welcome such contributions?
I think we should, these could be a valuable addition to the scholarly literature, which is ultimately the reason for our existence.
I very much like the idea.
However, it might not be easy (at least, I’d not find it as easy as for regular articles) to select meaningful ones. One option could be, at least for a first period, to only accept those upon invitations of (a minimum of) 3 editors? Or some other meaningful ‘pre-selection’ process?
I am very much in favor of starting a venue for this. For completeness I would like to note that the SciPost comment format does not fit the profile neither: that one is only vetted, but it must be about a single work and not an opinion piece.
I agree with @marcellodlm’s idea of vetting by the editors as the main criterion. Since opinions are by nature much more subjective, I think the only bar should be that these are scientific.
I also like very much the idea.
I agree the vetting from a minimum of 2 editors should be enough.
A possibility could be to publish opinion/perspectives in a blog format.