Low accountability in closed system. Reviewers can get by w/lazy review, ask 4 unreasonable things, review same paper multiple times for different journals, have undeclared COI, etc...

More importantly power differentials/favors happen in anon review too, but they are HIDDEN. https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1334871591507828737

Editors aren't immune to favors/bias/power differentials either! They also have responsibility to police system;
given time demands required, it's unpragamatic (and unreasonable) to expect policing to be adequate (and it ofn isn't). Not exactly a formula for fair process.

Closed review is counter-norm to scientific values we must adhere to keep scientific process fxning.

The merit of reviews should not be beyond accountability, but they essentially R unless editor steps in.

W/o transparency, fairness of review process hinges entirely on ed. There are great eds, but there are also strong disincentivizes to criticize reviews.

If review were open, would be incentive for reviewer 2 be fair & thorough.

That said, much of the tension of review happens b/c journals try to make reviewers take part in editorial decisions. Accept or reject? What experiments should be required? It can't be reviewers "fault." But if ed is peer, he/she is disincentive land too!

More so the higher up food chain reviewee is.

So what to do? Don't know, but totally unconvinced current system is superior.

Wish we could all sit around a table & just talk about what needs to be done for the science in our papers. But it's all about competing. Depressing.