we publish it all: first version + reviews (leave to reviewer
whether anon) + published version. Together as one document.
Perhaps split in two docs, or individually as attachments.
Reviewing is work. Possible positives of rendering it visible:
a) it leaves the trace of the peer production labour process; b)
we give references to other works, similar logic should apply to
reviews (if it leads to improvements in the final version,
reviewer's points get referenced); c) it is likely to make
reviewers take their work more seriously. In addition, if it has
the above positive effects, reviewers have reasons to have it
attributed.
here's a journal doing something like this:
http://www.economics-
ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2011-3
There are situations when publishing reviews might be against
the wishes of the reviewer, we could leave that as optional.
The _immediate_ concern is: my correspondent raised the issue of
whether there is any benefit in publishing reviews which normally
would have been intended to fix an earlier iteration.
So do we publish reviews? Do we identify reviewers? Or do we just
indicate who reviewed, without publishing the review? Or stay anon?
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal