While increasing transparency in editorial processes is likely to have some benefit, there's a point at which it may turn out to be counterproductive. I tend not to review for journals that disclose reviewer identity. It's hard to be constructively critical knowing that you have to deal with the author at some future gathering. Plus, the 'bad guys' will always be one step ahead. In other respects, I'm all for outing editorial malpractice.
Thanks for your comment. I totally get it. I am maybe too naive in that, but what if we treat the review process as a collective learning and mutual scientific knowledge building, where reviewers also get credit.
While increasing transparency in editorial processes is likely to have some benefit, there's a point at which it may turn out to be counterproductive. I tend not to review for journals that disclose reviewer identity. It's hard to be constructively critical knowing that you have to deal with the author at some future gathering. Plus, the 'bad guys' will always be one step ahead. In other respects, I'm all for outing editorial malpractice.
Thanks for your comment. I totally get it. I am maybe too naive in that, but what if we treat the review process as a collective learning and mutual scientific knowledge building, where reviewers also get credit.
I would say that there are ideals and then there is what happens in practice.