Anonymous Peer Review: Balancing Confidentiality and Transparency
In a recent case, a manuscript submission faced rejection following negative reviews, prompting the author to contest one particularly critical assessment. Despite the author's appeal, the editorial board reaffirmed the decision after thorough review. Now, the author seeks access to the manuscript files, including reviewer identities, which the journal typically withholds to safeguard confidentiality.
In response to the author's request, the editorial office has upheld its policy of maintaining reviewer anonymity, citing the importance of protecting reviewers from potential repercussions. This stance is in line with standard peer review practices, which prioritize confidentiality to foster candid and impartial evaluations.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) advises that while authors may seek access to their manuscript files, including reviewer names, editors retain discretion over the extent of disclosure. While transparency is valued, it must be balanced with the need to uphold reviewer confidentiality and prevent potential retaliation against reviewers.
Ultimately, editors are entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of the peer review process, and their decisions regarding disclosure should prioritize maintaining trust and impartiality within the scholarly community.
