[esbio]

As a person who did research until a few years ago, I must say that the problem is the exact opposite. When you send an article to a journal, the paper gets reviewed by a number of peers, which send their comments back to the Editor on the appropriateness of the claimed work.

The problem with this mechanism is that reviewers have no liability, because their comment is anonymous to the author and won't be available to the readers, as it won't be published as part of the article. The result is that reviewers are not made accountable now or in the future for inaccuracies in their review, blatant attacks, or tactical requests for additional irrelevant investigation just out of spite or to stall you so that they can scoop your paper.

Occasionally, the Editor can step in and disregard a particularly obnoxious reviewer, but it depends on the editor, the journal, and the political/scientific strength of the reviewer.

[seanmcdirmid]

> because their comment is anonymous to the author and won't be available to the readers

You can make comments on your papers available; there is nothing against that. I really think, however, peer review comments should actually be published with rejected and accepted papers (at the author's consent, not reviewers) so that conferences can be more transparent.

[esbio]

You can, but 1) there's no official channel 2) nobody will do it if they are not forced.