In a recent case brought to the attention of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an author appealed the rejection of two manuscripts by a journal, challenging a particularly negative review. The editorial board sought the counsel of a board member, who reviewed the manuscripts and reports, ultimately affirming the rejection decision. The author, dissatisfied with the outcome, now requests access to the manuscript files, including reviewer names and details of those approached for reviews.
The editorial office, following a peer review policy that ensures author blinding to reviewers' identities, refused the author's request, citing concerns about violating reviewers' confidentiality and potential exposure to hostile actions.
COPE's advice in this matter emphasizes the privileged and confidential nature of the peer review process. While acknowledging the editor's discretion to decide how much information to disclose, COPE emphasizes that the author does not inherently have the right to access their files. However, if the editor chooses to share this information, it must be done with due respect to the anonymity of those providing confidential advice.
This case underscores the delicate balance between transparency and confidentiality within the peer review system, highlighting the importance of ethical considerations in handling such requests. The ultimate decision rests with the editor, who must navigate the principles of confidentiality while maintaining the integrity of the peer review process.