[eloff]

I understand the concern about being free to speak candidly, but I think it's trumped by the need for transparency to ensure that if improper gatekeeping or other unethical behavior is happening, their reputation is also on the line. Basically if you can't say it to your peers in public, don't say it at all.

This also fixes the problem of incompetent peer review, because it will be called out as such and the reviewer's reputation will suffer.

[SantalBlush]

Opening peer review to public scrutiny will not make the process any less political--quite the contrary. There must be some way to combat the unethical behavior that does exist in academia, but that isn't it.

[eloff]

I think shining light on unethical behavior does reduce its incidence. Do you have some support for why you think the contrary?

[SantalBlush]

Please don't post opinions without supporting evidence and then ask for supporting evidence when someone disagrees with you. This just shows that you're applying skepticism selectively.

[eloff]

I don't have supporting evidence, and I'm not about to look it up right now. I think you're in the same boat or you wouldn't have replied like that.

I don't think it's controversial though, isn't it commonly believed that increased transparency means less corruption? It might not be true, but if it's the prevailing belief then the burden of proof is in fact on you.