The case of eLife, a life science journal, shows that Open Science is not an easy task and can generate many open questions and uncertainties in the assessment of research. eLife drastically changed its peer review procedure this year, for example, by revoking editorial decisions for acceptance and rejection of a manuscript. Perhaps disciplines focusing on individual assessment, such as psychology or medicine, could give some perspectives on how to deal with uncertainty in research assessment. A broader set of information is necessary that includes peer review ratings and a set of bibliometric indicators beyond the classical citation impact indicators. The quality of information in terms of reliability, validity, and fairness should be explicitly taken into account.