Some journals do single blind and some others do double blind review process. In either case, contacting the authors after publication breaks the code of conduct of review process. The identity of the reviewer needs to be anonymous.

Everyone one will not take criticism in a positive manner. Next time, the same author group whom you reviewed earlier may mark you as opposed reviewer in the journal uploading system.

If one develops such a rapport or collaboration, it would be impossible to reject a poor manuscript from the same group at some point of time. I have extensively served as reviewer for leading SCI journals. Sometimes, the editors themselves bypass the review process to favor a poor manuscript for publication for a former colleague/friend/known experts in a field.

One need not to act as a reviewer in order to make a collaboration with another expert in a field. He should have adequate publications and reputation in that field to make national/international collaborations to execute a joint project. 

Some journals do single blind and some others do double blind review process. In either case, contacting the authors after publication breaks the code of conduct of review process. The identity of the reviewer needs to be anonymous.

Everyone one will not take criticism in a positive manner. Next time, the same author group whom you reviewed earlier may mark you as opposed reviewer in the journal uploading system.

If one develops such a rapport or collaboration, it would be impossible to reject a poor manuscript from the same group at some point of time. I have extensively served as reviewer for leading SCI journals. Sometimes, the editors themselves bypass the review process to favor a poor manuscript for publication for a former colleague/friend/known experts in a field.

One need not to act as a reviewer in order to make a collaboration with another expert in a field. He should have adequate publications and reputation in that field to make national/international collaborations to execute a joint project. 

I do not think that it is ethically wrong to reveal one's identity. But , as Dinaharan rightly pointed out , on practical considerations , it may not be advisable to reveal one's identity.

ANIRBAN BANERJEE

Professor of Sociology

The University of Burdwan

Golapbag,

Burdwan 713104

West Bengal

INDIA

Reviewers often subsequently reveal their identity. Yet - it still remains difficult to pin their name to the exact review?! I think it best on a professional note not to reveal your identity as a reviewer.

Would it be wrong for me [reviewer] to, at any point, reveal that I once reviewed the earlier paper and came with the constructive criticism that a and b etc?

In my opinion, I do not think so because reviewing articles must be anonymous. In addition, depending on how "earlier" is the article was written. Both reviewer and author have advanced to their competency of their field during this time period. 

Please let me know if this reference is useful to you:

The peer-reviewed journal Nature states the following about the views of "Anonymity" in the peer review process:

"Anonymity

We do not release referees' identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. However, to increase the transparency of the reviewing process, reviewers may sign their reports, if they feel comfortable doing so. Before revealing their identities, referees should consider the following: (1) Referee reports, whether signed or not, are subsequently shared with the other reviewers and with other Nature journals if the manuscript were to be transferred and (2) Reviewers may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and on further revisions of the manuscript and identified reviewers may find these discussions more challenging.

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors while the manuscript is under consideration without the editor's knowledge. If this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after a reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author.

We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewer or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities.

Double blind peer review:

All Nature journals offer a double-blind peer review option. Authors who choose this option at submission remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process. The authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript accordingly; a checklist is provided to help with this process. More information is available in Editorials, including this Nature announcement and earlier publications related to trials that started in 2013 in Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change."

Site:  http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Thanks Dennis, Arthur, Michelle, Anirban and I. Dinaharan!

(I have been on vacation but now back.)

>I like especially the nuanced approach used by Nature, which Dennis brought to the discussion. Thanks!

I conclude that there are basically three different ethical scenarios:

1) The situation when an article is under review. In this situation a reviewer has promised something to en editor/journal he/she is expected to follow: be anonymous. There can be variations on this. This is a more or less contractual agreement, but within a limited situation in time.

2) The situation after acceptance and publication. I can want to support and uphold a culture of anonymity that makes the review system work. However, I see that it often is not as anonymous and blind as it is meant to be, especially in specialised fields of research. It may be the best system we have anyway, and wort to support. But, I do not see the fact that I, X, reviewed once this paper Y, and made some recommendations, as a kind of secret I must bring into the grave with me. The promise to the actual journal and editor is limited in time, reasonably, but it can be wise to generally not tell a researcher that I once reviewed a paper of yours. This kind of information could be perceived as some kind of bullying in worst case. 

There can be situations, though, for example when I later, long time after publication of a paper, get into close cooperation with a researcher whose manuscript i once happened to review. In this situation I use my personal judgement. It can be that I have the same praise or criticism both then and now, and my research friend will understand it anyhow.

Thanks for the discussion!