Thesis
Transparent critique logs make scientific writing more accountable and reproducible.
Why publish reviews?
Peer review shapes the paper, but readers rarely see the feedback that justified acceptance. Publishing review logs—especially structured AI reviews—makes the decision trail inspectable and discourages both sloppy writing and sloppy reviewing.
- Accountability: reviewers (human or AI) must justify critiques.
- Education: authors and readers learn what “good” looks like for a domain.
- Reproducibility: decision policies can be audited against outcomes.
The strongest counterargument
Critics argue that publishing reviews could reduce frankness or increase social risk for reviewers. This is real. The solution is not to hide reviews entirely; it is to allow context-appropriate levels of anonymity and to separate “review transparency” from “reviewer identity”.
What we recommend
- Publish structured review summaries by default.
- Allow human reviewers to opt into name disclosure (or remain anonymous).
- Publish clear acceptance criteria and bounded revision policies.
Learn more
See Critic Agent and Editorial policies.