Yes Elias, peer review will subject an author's scholarly work to the examination of other experts in the field in order to determine whether the manuscript is good to be published. Having it blind will ensure an objective judgement as the reviewers are not aware of the authors to the paper. For this reason, there shall be a fair judgement of the scholarly work

Yes, it would be good to know who the reviewers are. But I don't think their comments should be added to published papers

Yes Elias, peer review will subject an author's scholarly work to the examination of other experts in the field in order to determine whether the manuscript is good to be published. Having it blind will ensure an objective judgement as the reviewers are not aware of the authors to the paper. For this reason, there shall be a fair judgement of the scholarly work

Reviewers comments are for improvement of the MS and they are not for publication. Occasionally some comments might be wrong and good editors are supposed to go through the comments of the authors too and take correct decision.

In my opinion, reviewers should be anonymous and no need for their comments to be published.

In some cases, it is required.

I am very strongly associated with one journal. Once I received very bad remark from a reviewer against the article send to him. Other two reviewers did not comment so tough.

Personally I searched the matter. The supervisor of the author (a Ph D student) and the reviewer was working on related topics in different institutions. So, you can assume the reason.

As a reviewer, I allow every journal authority to disclose my name, if they require it.

Thanks.

Blind peer review is more objective.

Following are the links for the essential role of peer review

https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/career-tips-and-advice/5-reasons-why-peer-review-matters

http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Definitionandpurposeofpeerreview.html

https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/07/26/why-is-peer-review-so-important-a-guide-to-peer-review-part-1

I fully agree with the response of Dawood Mahdi that reviewers should be anonymous.

I am not sure it would contribute to higher quality of neither article nor journal.

Dear Sadanand Pandey

In the process it should be anonymous. Only the published paper can have the name of the reviewers.

Do we still need blind peer review for quality publication? I would say yes, we need it. The reasons have already been mentioned.

To improve the quality of the publications name of the reviewers needs to published in the paper? I think that there is no need.

Even the comments and answers can be added at the end of published paper? My answer is no.

Regards

We still need blind peer review whether single- or double-blind peer review.

I do not think that blind review acquires objectivity, as it often has the opposite effect.

It really does not matter if it is a blind peer review or not. In many ways it is better for the author to know who reviewed their work. The quality of review should be independent of whether it is blindly reviewed or not

"In recent years a number of journals have experimented with various types of open peer review processes in an attempt to improve on the blind review. Nature tried out a hybrid review process in 2006, giving authors an option of having their manuscripts published online during the peer review process, with any comments being published along with the reviewers’ names. The experiment was a flop: only 5% of authors opted for an open review and only half of these papers received any comments.

Other open review experiments have been more successful. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) has a review process much like the one Nature tried out—an open, informal review of the manuscript on the internet and a simultaneous formal process. Authors may reply to the open critiques and their replies are posted. At the end of the formal/informal review process a decision is made on whether to publish the paper or not. ACP is a successful journal and is well regarded."

https://www.enago.com/academy/open-vs-blind-peer-review/

It varies according to the local culture. In some countries, evaluators do not feel comfortable to be known.

The traditional blind peer review process is supposed to encourage open and honest critiques of a publication.

Yes but not single reviewer

I feel the process of double-blind peer review is fair enough and more accurate...