The story is a long one, and it’s a bit complicated. The peer reviewer, based at the Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, had served as a peer-reviewer for a poorly-handled review process earlier in 2015. He peer reviewed a manuscript and recommended that the paper be resubmitted after it was improved.
The paper went through two rounds of review and re-submit, but each time the paper’s scientific flaws were not addressed.
Next, the peer reviewer recommended that the paper be rejected. Following this, he received no communication from the journal or editor. Later, he discovered that [journal] had published the paper, in its original form, with the flaws unaddressed.
The peer reviewer asked to communicate with the other peer reviewers and the associate editor who accepted the paper for the journal, but [publisher] has so far refused to let him read the other reviews or provide contact information for the others.
(I obscured the name of the journal/publisher since it's irrelevant to the question)
In situations such as this one, should the journal:
- Show the reviewer the other reviewers' reviews?
- Reveal the identity of the other reviewers and/or associate editor to the reviewer and let them talk? (problem is the other people might not be very interested, since it is drama)
- Serve as an intermediary between the reviewer and the other reviewers and/or associate editor while keeping the other people anonymous? (same problem as above)
- Do nothing and suck up the reputational damage?
In this specific case, the reviewer has written (same source as above):
I regret that the authors of [paper] (some of who I do know not superficially) lost their reputation in (not only) my eyes subsequently. As to the lead author of [paper], Mr. [name], I cannot call him a scientist, as he betrays fundamental principles of Science.
Which makes me instinctively wary of dragging more people into the argument, but I don't see any other way to satisfy the reviewer.