"Should The BMJ silence authors who were abused by a reviewer?" (2017)

https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/201...ilence-authors-who-were-abused-by-a-reviewer/

This came out before this forum was set up. I thought there might be somebody here who hadn't seen it before and might find it of interest.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1320410692072202241

 

For a truly open peer review I believe that all reviewers should be prepared to be public signatories and also be prepared to have their comments published alongside the document.

Even if the reviewer thinks the paper shouldn't be published this should be the case. If nothing else it might engender further interest and discussion if the topic.

It shows what a miserable state of affairs this business is in if a reviewer has to attack the author rather than argue the subject and is let get away with it. A reviewer like that should be blacklisted.

 

Some journals now do have open review where reviewers' comments are given with the name attached.
However I'm not sure any journals share reviewer comments, if a paper is not published.

 

https://www.s4me.info/threads/micha...ohnthejack-on-twitter.3464/page-88#post-84643

Note: Despite the thread title, Michael Sharpe is not reviewer 2.

 

I meant if the paper was published but one of the reviewers thought it shouldn't be.

If the paper itself isn't published then I'm not sure there would be much point & it would be even more unfair to the author I think.