Abstract
The Editor states that publishing peer reviewers’ names is ‘a bold step in improving the transparency’ of the peer-review process, and is important in achieving a more open process. 1 While one may respect Dr Abbassi's opinion in this regard, it appears to be an opinion held without objective supporting data. The review process is supposed to be an objective process, not a process in which a couple of acquaintances get together and have a friendly chat about a research report, before recommending publication to the Editor. Locking in the reviewer and author in this way will impede independence in the reviewer's opinion. The right place for collaboration between author and uninvolved expert is at the writing stage, when an opinion from a respected expert colleague or contemporary researcher, naïve to the research itself, is always a wise and usually a highly revealing process. Locking in the reviewer to the data set out in the paper, by publicising his or her name, is not, in general, a constructive idea. However, an editorial written by an enthusiastic reviewer has merit in independently considering and perhaps endorsing the work.
Footnotes