The peer-review process is the heartbeat of academic publishing. It is how researchers ensure that knowledge moves forward through scrutiny, feedback, and validation. Authors submit their manuscripts to journals or conferences, and editors send them to other experts who assess the work’s originality, rigour, and relevance.

In this blog, I try to dissect the question: Should the names of reviewers be made public alongside the papers they review?

It’s a question that goes right to the core of what we value in academia: fairness, transparency, and accountability. Firstly, let's discuss the various faces of peer review.

The Many Faces of Peer Review

Not all review systems are the same. Here’s a quick primer on how they differ:

Single-blind review: Reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors don’t know who reviewed their paper. This is the most common model. It helps reviewers judge work in context, but it can also lead to bias toward famous institutions or names (see Giannakakos et al., 2024).

Double-blind review: Neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other’s identity. This is designed to reduce bias, and research has shown it can help level the playing field, particularly for underrepresented groups or lesser-known institutions (see Giannakakos et al., 2024).

Triple-blind review: Here, even the editor doesn’t know who the authors are until after the decision. It’s rare and hard to manage, but it takes impartiality one step further (see Publons, 2018).

Open review: Everyone knows who’s who, and sometimes, the review reports are published with the final paper. This model is gaining traction within the broader open science movement (see Ross-Hellauer, 2017).

Each model has its champions and critics. But the real question now is whether reviewers’ names should appear with the papers they’ve evaluated, especially when the paper is accepted.

Why Publishing Reviewer Names Might Be a Good Thing

1. Accountability Improves Quality

When reviewers know their names might appear in public, they often take extra care to be fair and constructive. A study by Bravo and colleagues (2019) found that open reviews were more polite and detailed. It also means that reviews stop being invisible labour. Platforms like Publons and ORCID now let reviewers earn credit for their contributions, a small but important recognition for the countless hours they spend improving others’ work.

2. Transparency Builds Trust

Publishing reviewers’ names helps readers see that real experts were involved in the decision to publish a paper. It demystifies the process and reduces the perception of favouritism or bias. This transparency aligns well with the push toward open science—sharing not just data and code, but also the process behind publication.

3. Better Incentives and Higher-Quality Submissions

Empirical studies suggest that when the peer-review process becomes more transparent, through the publication of reviewer names or review reports, authors tend to submit better-prepared manuscripts. For example, a large-scale analysis of journals adopting open or transparent review found that such models were associated with improved editorial efficiency and fewer desk rejections due to incomplete or poor-quality submissions (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2020). This is partly because open review creates an environment of accountability: authors know that their submissions, and the corresponding reviews, may later be made public or attributed to specific experts.

Review transparency also correlates with reduced reviewer fatigue. According to Publons’ Global State of Peer Review report (2018), one of the key drivers of reviewer overload is the high volume of low-quality submissions, which lengthens review cycles and discourages reviewer participation. By increasing visibility and accountability in the process, transparent systems can reduce unnecessary submissions and help reviewers focus on scientifically sound work.

The Flip Side: Why It Might Be a Bad Idea

1. It Makes Finding Reviewers Even Harder

Let’s be honest, getting qualified reviewers is already a challenge. Adding the risk of public exposure can make it worse. Many experts, especially early-career researchers, might simply decline to review if their names will be made public.

2. Fear of Retaliation

This is the biggest concern. Reviewers who recommend rejection could become targets for anger or professional revenge, particularly in small research communities. Publishing names only for accepted papers might help, but it creates a skewed system that rewards positive reviews and hides the tougher (but necessary) ones.

3. It Could Water Down Criticism

When everyone knows their comments could be public, reviewers might avoid being too critical, especially if the author is a senior figure in their field. This fear can lead to vague, less useful reviews—defeating the purpose of peer review altogether.

4. It Could Discourage Informal Knowledge Sharing

Science thrives on open conversation—informal exchanges at conferences, over email, or through drafts. If reviewing becomes a public act, some researchers might become more guarded, worrying that their views or feedback could be publicly associated with a rival’s work.

Finding a Middle Ground

Some journals are experimenting with open-review systems where the content of peer reviews is made public, but reviewers can decide whether to reveal their identities. This hybrid model seeks to combine transparency with reviewer protection.

For instance, eLife publishes the full decision letter, author responses, and review summaries alongside accepted papers. Reviewers are invited—but not required—to sign their reports. Studies of eLife’s model show that many reviewers voluntarily identify themselves, particularly senior researchers who view open reviewing as a form of professional accountability (Godlee et al., 1998; Ross-Hellauer et al., 2017).

Similarly, F1000Research employs a fully open post-publication peer-review system in which all review reports are visible and reviewers must sign their names. Their experience suggests that open reports foster more constructive dialogue between authors and reviewers and help readers understand how a paper evolved through critique (Tennant et al., 2017).

So, Should Reviewer Names Be Published?

I think transparency generally strengthens the research process—but only when it doesn’t endanger or discourage the people who make it work. Reviewers play a critical, often thankless role in maintaining scientific standards. A balanced approach, where reviewers can choose whether to reveal their names, seems the most reasonable way forward. It honours transparency without sacrificing safety or candour. After all, the goal isn’t to expose reviewers—it’s to make the system fairer, more open, and ultimately more trustworthy.

Further Reading

  • Tomkins et al. (2017), PNAS — on reviewer bias in single- vs. double-blind review
  • Ross-Hellauer (2017), F1000Research — What is open peer review? A systematic review
  • Bravo et al. (2019), Nature Communications — The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals
  • Publons (2018), Global State of Peer Review Report — on reviewer workload and attitudes: https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf
  • Tennant et al. (2017), F1000Research — A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
  • Giannakakos, V.P., Karanfilian, T.S., Dimopoulos, A.D. et al. Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications. Scientometrics 130, 399–421 (2025)
  • Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA, 280(3), 237–240