The manuscript peer review process is supposed to be secret, for the most part. The authors are not to know who reviewed their manuscript…this is generally for the protection against potential retaliation and the corresponding expectation of unfettered evaluation.

Yet one often has conversations with ones fellow scientists at conferences where it becomes obvious the other person reviewed your manuscript. Or that you reviewed theirs.

I find, especially lately, that this is *good* for science. You can discuss the issues with the person. Naturally this is only in cases for which the reviewer wasn’t a total hater…don’t think I’ve had that conversation yet!

It is common enough in the manuscript peer review process. You have submitted your best professional analysis of the manuscript and then the dang editor proceeds to ignore you.

Does this bother you?

Is it worse or better when your opinion is to reject, or to accept?

Do you go by the reviewer box-score and remain unconcerned of it is 2/3 against your review? Or do you insist those other two idiots missed all the key points?