Here are some preliminary thoughts. Please add some practical and uncontroversial suggestions of your own...

1. If the paper is accepted, include the name of the referee in the acknowledgements. Of course this would not change the anonymity circumstance during the submission process and it could lead to increased scientific rigour.

2. Define a notion of secondary authorship status. If the editor believes that the referee has made a useful contribution to the paper, add the name of the referee as a secondary author. This should be counted as up to half a publication in the annual evaluation process at the referee's university. This experience could result in a better understanding of the value of collaboration to science.

3. Editor facilitates and mediates an informative and useful discussion between the authors and the referee, so that the referee benefits scientifically from their time invested and the author is less likely to feel unheard.

Similar questions and discussions