Hm... I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to make it a part of the process. The good thing about knowing each other after the review process is that the reviewer may help the authors to improve the paper... however, there is also a chance that authors feel offended and try to get back at reviewers in the one or the other way... Don't take this the wrong way... I absolutely see the benefit in putting reviewers and authors in contact after the reviewing... though, I think the reviewers should decide for themselves if they want to provide contact details or not! ...and they already have the chance to do that, e.g., by putting contact details in the review! ...the reviewer guidelines that I know do not forbid that.

That situation you posit is actually quite normal. There are no drawbacks, only the advantages of possible future collaborations.

It's like going to a party and meeting the person who becomes your life mate.

Agree with Ian. I don't see drawbacks; only benefits. In academia - we are usually reasonable people who realise that others mostly do not 'have axes to grind'. Reviewers are volunteers (and hopefully a carefully chosen expert in their field) and if authors appreciate that, then an open process should have all parties benefitting one way or another - and, as Ian suggests, there may be more scope for collaboration than is currently the case.

Well, I cannot see any problem with them knowing each other after - for example meeting each other in a conference and the reviewer would be a bit humble to talk to the author of the article and introduce himself/herself!

However, if the reviewer rejected the paper - I do not think there is a need for them to be introduced at all! -:)

Regards

Theodora Issa

Rejection of an article shouldn't really figure in the equation Theodora. If the rejection is balanced and objective - it is what it is. I would welcome personal comment from authors where I have rejected their article - and woud, expect the same the other way around. It's part of peer support. I'm pretty sure, by now, with my reviewing experience that if I reject a manuscript - then it deserves to be rejected. Unless the authors have a very subjective bias towards their search - they would be best served by 'embracing' constructive feedback to support their future endeavors. OK - not all feedback is welcome - but authors should be able to differentiate from what is constructive and what is destructive.

Hm... I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to make it a part of the process. The good thing about knowing each other after the review process is that the reviewer may help the authors to improve the paper... however, there is also a chance that authors feel offended and try to get back at reviewers in the one or the other way... Don't take this the wrong way... I absolutely see the benefit in putting reviewers and authors in contact after the reviewing... though, I think the reviewers should decide for themselves if they want to provide contact details or not! ...and they already have the chance to do that, e.g., by putting contact details in the review! ...the reviewer guidelines that I know do not forbid that.

Thank y'all for the valuable comments.

Thank you all - Dean - sometimes though the reviewers might give valuable information when they reject - but I cannot see the author eager to meet those as soon as possible, may be later - after the first shock...

I have never been asked to give my details to the author after reviewing a paper! but sometimes and due to specialisation, the author (if very well versed in the line of their research would be able to know who has checked their paper!)

Regards

Theodora Issa

Marco and Theodora - it's probably down to individual journal preferences as to whether it would be a good thing or not. If it's quite a wide pool of reviewers - then the author/s are probably not going to know the reviewers and this makes it less 'personal'. On the other hand, if it's a small speciality field and reviewers are likely to be known to the authors - that could cause conflict. I agree though Marco - that it is about choice - by both parties involved. I agree Theodora that sometimes you do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to know who is reviewing your work - especially if they suggest the inclusion of certain multiple works by a particular author!!

Glenn - very good points. I review for 30+ international journals and obviously submit to quite a few. Pretty much all your points resonate with me. It is certainly not a 'level playing field' out there - either as a reviewer or author. One thing that does encourage me a little more, is that quite a few journals I review for feedback to me on their final decision - and feedback to me the other reviewers comments. Like you suggest, the feedback is often quite similar. However, the decision may differ quite widely - from accept through to reject. The level of feedback, as you also suggest, can widely differ - from a few sentences thorough to feedback longer than the manuscript itself.

Well... great discussion...

It might be that the interactive way between the author and the reviewer might be a long way away - but what about having an interactive session between the reviewers, so, they can really exchange ideas and we will not see that vast difference between them...

I am currently looking at some reviews... while one reviewer would very highly rank a book chapter the other would really be very harsh on that same chapter...

Dean - I agree with you - that the recommendations by the reviewer to include some works would be guiding you to the reviewer's identity... and yes, sometimes some of the reviewers would be authoring a manuscript rather than providing an opinion in others' work ... which might make the person at the receiving end feel that those scholars do not want others to publish.

Thanks and regards

Theodora Issa

Anonymity is crucial to the review process. The reason is that in most fields the number of productive (i.e., publishing) scholars is relatively small, and given that a negative review is likely to generate considerable rancor, we would find little candor in reviews were the reviewers' names made public.

A colleague experienced this problem a few years ago, when she was asked to review a book manuscript. After reading only a dozen pages, she was certain that she knew who the author was, a person who had been a close friend for decades. Unfortunately, the manuscript was terrible, poorly thought out and poorly executed. She notified the editor that she could not complete the review owing to the personal association with the author, specifically requesting that the editor preserve her anonymity. The editor did not and eventually rejected the manuscript. The friend assumed, incorrectly, that my colleague had written a negative review, and she broke off their friendship.

To ensure future independence of reviewers, it is probably not a good idea for them to be able to correspond with each other if they are ever going to be called to review another paper. It is less likely that reviewers would want to do cooperative research than a single reviewer would want to do subsequent work with the author.

According to me if after the publication of the reviewed article, the reviewer and author came to know each other and wish to interact for some future project, they should start a cooperative research plan. It would be a great project where there will be merge of two great minds. Of course, it will be better for the humanity.

Hi Ian,

Didn't know that you were in the business of insurance ; )

Just today, something happened to me that raises another point. I reviewed a manuscript that was a revised resubmission to a journal - yet I was not one of the original reviewers. No doubt the authors tried their best to amend it according to the previous reviewer instructions - but I am not privy to those. I rejected it - but they may have done exactly what the previous reviewers suggested. In cases like that, I think it would be good for me to correspond with the original reviewers - although a chat with the editor should be just as good.

@Dean: I need to ensure that I get a holiday soon! Problem fixed.

Some papers will never be accepted, however many referee's suggestions are incorporated.

Well done Ian - and I'm sure that holiday is imminent.

Correct - they may well have addressed previous comments - but I rejected it 'looking fresh at it' on the basis it was not a well conducted study, did not flow logically, was unoriginal - and would have been of little interest to the readers of the particular journal. I've no idea what it would have looked like previously!!