EDITORIAL STANDOFF: AUTHOR REQUESTS MANUSCRIPT FILES IN ANONYMOUS PEER REVIEW DISPUTE
In a recent development within academic publishing, a dispute has arisen over an author's request for access to manuscript files in an anonymous peer review process.
Following the submission and subsequent rejection of two manuscripts by a journal, the author contested a particularly negative review and appealed the decision. Seeking clarification, the journal consulted an editorial board member, who affirmed the validity of the rejection based on the received reviews.
However, tensions escalated when the author demanded access to the manuscript files, including the identities of the reviewers and those approached for review. The editorial office, upholding its peer review policy, declined, citing the importance of reviewer confidentiality and the potential risks of author hostility.
The essence of the conflict lies in the confidential nature of the peer review process, which safeguards open discourse between editors and reviewers. While the author has requested transparency, the editor is entrusted with discretion regarding the disclosure of information. While the editor may choose to reveal the files to the author, this should be done with utmost regard for the anonymity of reviewers.
As the debate unfolds, it underscores the delicate balance between transparency and confidentiality in academic publishing, prompting a reevaluation of the boundaries between authorial rights and editorial discretion.
