JOURNAL FACES DILEMMA OVER AUTHOR'S REQUEST FOR ANONYMOUS PEER REVIEW FILES
In a recent editorial quandary, a scientific journal grapples with a request from an author seeking access to the manuscript files, including reviewer names, after two submissions were rejected based on negative reviews. The journal's adherence to a blinded peer review policy has prompted a refusal from the editorial office, citing concerns about violating reviewer confidentiality and potential hostility towards reviewers.
The author, dissatisfied with a specific negative review, appealed the decision, leading the journal to consult an editorial board member who supported the initial rejection based on the reviews. Now, the author insists on accessing the manuscript files, raising questions about the delicate balance between transparency and the confidentiality inherent in the peer review process.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) advises that the decision to disclose information lies with the editor, emphasizing the confidential nature of the peer review process. While the editor is not obligated to reveal reviewer names, COPE suggests that, if the editor deems it appropriate, they may choose to share the files with the author, provided the anonymity of the confidential reviewers is maintained.
This ethical dilemma underscores the ongoing challenges faced by journals in navigating the delicate balance between transparency and preserving the integrity of the peer review process.
