And how about having the authors secret ? This would really avoid any biais.

Disclosing may not be a good idea as it might lead to personal rivalry which eventually ends up in killing research work.

This is one reason why 3 reviewers are preferable over 2 reviewers. As far as I know either the editor decides on basis of the reviews and/or considering probably his / her knowledge about the reviewers as well. It is not unusual to release all review comments to both reviewers (!) in such a case and asking for further commments and Details. Further the editor has the option of consulting a third reviewer to come to an decision. I do not see any benefit in disclosing the names of the reviewers to the authors, it is only baising people (as it does the editor as well).

Some journals give the names of reviewers, but probably it is better to keep them secret. Why? I think that in that way the reviewers write easier what they really think about the submitted paper. It is true that some reviewers are a bit egoistic and think about their own interest (citations of their papers or personal rivalry). That is why, the good and experienced editor is needed. Such editors are able to select the useful information in the review from this less useful.

And how about having the authors secret ? This would really avoid any biais.

Good suggestion Lukas Alberts.

One big problem in reviewing publications, is the quality of the expression. I am not a native English speaker too, so it is sometimes really very time and attention consuming to read bad formulated papers. A need for a qualified translation before submission would be welcome to me.

Very interesting topic...revealing the reviewer's name would have both advantages as well as disadvantages. In this age of e-connectivity, it will pave the way to establish a direct contact between the author and the reviewer. This would potentially result in either a very fruitful discussion leading to substantial improvement of the article or a disastrous ego-war. Perhaps the conflict of interest may be minimized if the reviewers involved active research on the same phenomenon / material system are avoided.

It is better to give a chance to reviewers to decide whether they disclose or not. It doesn't matter whether they accept/reject paper, if the job is done perfectly, some reviewers would like disclose their names. (Some reviewers give excellent ideas to improve papers). It may help authors in future publications to nominate reviewers, as some journals ask so. However, I agree that there are disadvantages too.

Names/ institutions/ countries of auhors should not be disclosed to reviewers. But unfortunately many journals do so.

Girtish,

For the few papers that I've been invited to review (Planetary and Space Science, mostly) this *is* indeed one of the questions that reviewers are asked. It's a reasonable request and I would commend it as an option to enable greater transparency between author and reviewer.

I think it must be communicate both comments to the authors, with names, because normally is the author the best knowing to interpret it, and can to understand both positions and intent to explain his/her arguments.

I think that the author can explain it to the reviewer, and the reviewer must not answer, but he/she can change the first opinión.

I do think disclosing both parties (reviewers and authors) is not a good idea as it may rises such conflict of interests. However, disclosing option (by request) might be good to be applied after final decision of the manuscript (rejection or acceptance).

If two or more reviewers differ in their opinions in evaluating a paper, the editor must send the comments to the reviewers seeking their explanations on why the difference in their opinions occurs. The editor may request the reviewers to adjust their stands and come to a common settling point on whether the paper can be rejected and accepted. If this is not done, good paper may be rejected and bad baper may be acceted because of difference of opinions of the reviewers. The reviewers may ask the editor to contact the authors to get clearance on ambiguous points during their review process.

To my view, it is not good to disclose reviewers to authors as this may ultimately lead to unfair review process. Editor may act as intermedtiator to minimize the difference of opinions between reviewers and authors. Lastly, authors may be given enough chance to improve their papers.

In my opinion there are two options for the editor:

Either he is himself expert on the topic of the manuscript then he can decide what to do.

If he is not an expert or uncertain what to do, he should ask for a further review with at least one new reviewer, sending the previous reports in addition to the manuscript and possibly a response of the authors to the previous reports.

Disclosing the names of the reviewers is not the point here, nor double blind reviewing. The latter is quite often senseless since most reviewers know who is working in the field and will often recognise the style of presentation of the authors even if their names and affiliations are hidden. Also, in most cases authors will cite their own works also whence clues to authorship are in the list of references.

The only objective of the reviewing is to identify "bad" manuscripts that are seriously flawed, or not within the scope of the journal, or plagiats or hoaxes or alike.

I prefer anonymous reviewing, but if a reviewer agrees or chooses to be disclosed that would be ok for me also.

in general, the question is clear, at least for IEEE journals. In this case, your review does not count.

I think it is not necessary. In review process, anonymity is important and should be maintained.

Imagine what could happen if the two reviewers decide to give their names and “accidentally” their opinions are quite opposite. Quite opposite opinions can have two causes: a) one of the reviewers is not “familiar” with the paper subject or b) he/she is too “familiar” with the author. It is best, in my opinion to keep reviewers anonymous to the authors. The editor should be careful in such cases and ask a third opinion. Then, the reviewer with a strange opinion could be avoided for any next assignments.

The idea of hiding the name of the authors could be beneficial, for the objectivity of the evaluation, but it has a major shortcoming: the reviewer cannot look for previous publications of the same authors, in search of common ideas, parts, figures, etc.

As a conclusion, if not perfect but perfectible, the present situation remains the best.

Not at all. It will increase the rivalry. I also strongly feel that author's name also shouldn"t go to the reviewer.

Research results, when published in good faith, are aimed at the advancement of Science.

Rivalry does exist but is not to be considered one of the ruling principles of scientific research. A good Editor is also one which can try and avoid such conflicts by assigning reviews to peers who have a good reputation for improving the quality of the work presented, i.e. adopt an attitude of constructive rather than destructive criticism.

Once this is established, the general behavior of any honest reviewer will be that of not disclosing his/her name to the Author in just about all cases (whether the option is enclosed or not within the reviewing rules). Only in exceptional cases the need to disclose one's name may be felt by the reviewer and in that case he/she should feel free to do so.