They don't usually mention the name of the reviewer.

They don't usually mention the name of the reviewer.

Probably to protect the anonymity of the peer review process.

And what about you? If you were a reviewer, you would like to be mentioned :-)

Usually names are not mentioned to make the process complete transparent without any problems or embarrassments get to the reviewers because of the announcement of names

In order to avoid the bias 

the name of reviewers are not mentioned for several reasons. By keeping te reviewers anonymous it prevents bias, keeps objectivity, and also to protect the reviewer from attacks in case the review is unfavourable. I am a reviewer and i do not want my name on the review, as that can cause problems or embarrassment to either party

Dr RéaganL

It's a blind review process to avoid any bias and to assure the transparency 

I mean reviewers name in publication !!!!!!!!!!! Thank goodness , else Einstein's would not have received the Noble (solely ) 

Now some of the frontline journals have started giving credit to Reviewers as well by publishing the Reviewers name .This is really fascinating.. 

This is confidential and I don't think this will be good if that will be published. So it is better not to disclose the name of reviewer, this will increase the complications.

I appreciated the reviewer's contribution to my submitted papers and I didn't mind if his/her name was not mentioned. It could have been a co-worker or a previous supervisor / collaborator. I didn't want to know; all I wanted was an improved text!

In my own little experience, I think some journals are now publishing names of both the reviewers and editor(s) of the published manuscript. The reviewers / editors remained anonymous until the paper is published. The authors didn't know all these until their work is published.

I think it is OK, when the manuscripts had scale all the hurdles and eventually published, the reviewers/editor(s) can be given some credits by including their names and affiliations in the published work.

Thank you.

Olutosin

I agree with Prof. Olutosin.

Some journals publish the names of reviewers. In one of our paper (IMPACT OF HEAVY METAL IN FISHES ON CONSUMER CENTRIC MARKET) recently published which has the reviewers names.

Example - Int Journal of Agriculture Sciences, ISSN 0975-3710

Patents used to have published reviewer names and the names of legal firms representing an author(s). It is because a patent is a government generated license, patent examiners are certified government employees, and the whole patent application consideration and a patent commercial life after it is being granted, are regulated by country laws.

Research journal/magazine publishing houses typically are commercial entities, sometimes associated with academies or universities, or specific scientific and/or engineering societies. So that research publication processing is not governed by the country laws but rather businesses corporate rules and/or their affiliated organizations' regulations.

Hence, editorial board policies and non formally certified and liable to the country laws reviewers are deciding on articles' destiny. Usually, it works quite well, as the businesses are not interested in any disruptions, scandals, and negative PR. However, in many cases it leads to either inefficient, or unjust, or questionable practices of publishing houses. That's the reality whether we like it or not.      

Amit , reviewers spend so much quality time in providing peer reviews to high impact factor journals without any recognition, probably thos is a right spproach to give some distinction to reviewers also alongside authors. In recent past, this was the main reason, reviewers  were so reluctant to be a part review process of different journals, so let's appreciate any such efforts to recognize reviewers as well..

Most magazines do not remember the names of reviewers, and few of them mention their names, and in both cases there is no problem in that “””if the magazine is credible and high confidence”””

The names of the reviewers are not mentioned in the published scientific articles, because the publishers think that knowing the name of reviewers may unnecessarily bring personal attributes in between scientific research.

They think that if they review paper without knowing the authors and authors get a review without knowing the reviewers details then the  review will be more transparent and accurate.

hello

This is a special question I will follow up and I will recommend it

regards

It is a step in the right direction to hide the identities of reviewers because this anonymity improves the rigor of the peer review process. It aids in avoiding any possible lobbying which personally I think is unethical for a healthy scientific progression. Yet, after the eventual publication of the articles for a year, the reviewers can be acknowledged without necessarily indicating the papers they reviewed. This would be a source of motivation for the hard work and selfless sacrifices of reviewers who are poised at improving the quality of papers that are put in the public domain. It would be a booster to these reviewers that their efforts are well acknowledged and deeply appreciated. Best regards

Dickson Adom

It is blind review process, so you can not publish the names of the reviewers.

Because it is a blind peer review.

Because it is a blind peer review.

Peer review process is a one  step of many steps that an article should follow to reach the final publication step. For the blind review procedure, the name of the reviewers are hidden from the author  to make the reviewer decision  more fair. If the article is accepted for publication, it is unnecessary to  mention the reviewer's names because the manuscript is belong to the author not  to the reviewer and the reviewer's contribution in the manuscript is limited compared to the authors itself. 

It's good that reviewers names are not disclosed many times. It helps in hiding identity of persons involved in decision making. It rarely happen that reviewers are biased in that case commonly editors take decision or refer to 3rd person. Editors should be smart to make out such things. I know a Journal Ancient TL in which in the end of paper names of reviewers are printed. The journal sometimes make reviewer a author also if He contribute substantially in improving. Personally I feel that reviewer should make efforts to improve and make it publish by giving important suggestions. When I published first paper in Radiation Protection Dosimetry the editor/referee was so nice that he himself made changes with red pen , scanned and sent back for corrections sling with referee report. Now a days many editors are lacking this attitude.  

Publishing names of reviewers will unnecessary make trouble for reviewers. People will start contacting and making arguments. In give and take good or bad papers may be rejected or accepted. Finally journal quality may suffer.

The gold standard of research is the double blind research experiment where the researcher and the subjects or reviewers and reviewees are not known to one another. There is an experimental group and control group and this keeps the conclusion objective by reducing bias. If reviewers and reviewees were known, when an author gets a decline for publication, he or she may try to take revenge on the reviewer if he or she is known to the reviewee or author.

Dr Réagan

The anonymous nature depends on the policy of each journal, namely, as to whether the name of the authors is blind to the reviewers, whether the name of the reviewers is blind to the authors and readers, and whether the name of handling editor is blind to the authors and readers.

In a single blind peer review system, the name of the reviewers is blind to the authors. In a double blind peer review system, the name of the reviewers is blind to the authors and the name of the authors is blind to the reviewers. In a triple blind peer review system, the name of the reviewers is blind to the authors, the name of the authors is blind to the reviewers, and the name of handling editor is blind to the authors.

In an open peer review system, all information is open to each other. For instance, BMJ has made “prepublication history” (e.g., the reviewers’ comments, and the authors’ responses to the comments from the reviewers and the editors) fully open online, which has applied to accepted research papers submitted from September 2014 onwards. An example can been seen at http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5359/peer-review

Research ethics

Fully agree with Dr. MUNISH KUMAR's response.

Thank to all for answers and comments!