Should editors ever redact a reviewer’s comments?

References

Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B., and Squazzoni, F. (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behaviour in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications 10, 322.
| The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behaviour in five scholarly journals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Cassey, P., and Blackburn, T. M. (2003). Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 375–376.
| Publication rejection among ecologists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Foster, M. S. (1990). Organization of macroalgal assemblages in the Northeast Pacific: the assumption of homogeneity and the illusion of generality. Hydrobiologia 192, 21–33.
| Organization of macroalgal assemblages in the Northeast Pacific: the assumption of homogeneity and the illusion of generality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Foster, M. S. (1991). Rammed by the Exxon Valdez: a reply to Paine. Oikos 62, 93–96.
| Rammed by the Exxon Valdez: a reply to Paine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Gasparyan, A. Y., Gerasimov, A. N., Voronov, A. A., and Kitas, G. D. (2015). Rewarding peer reviewers – maintaining the integrity of science. Journal of Korean Medical Science 30, 360–364.
| Rewarding peer reviewers – maintaining the integrity of science.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Hull, D. (1988). ‘Science as Process.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago).

Mavrogenis, A. F., Quaille, A., and Scarlat, M. M. (2020). The good, the bad and the rude peer review. International Orthopaedics 44, 413–415.
| The good, the bad and the rude peer review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Paine, R. T. (1991). Between Scylla and Charybdis: do some kinds of criticism merit a response? Oikos 62, 90–92.
| Between Scylla and Charybdis: do some kinds of criticism merit a response?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Rosenfield, D., and Hoffman, S. J. (2009). Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback. Canadian Medical Association Journal 181, E301–E305.
| Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Silbiger, N. J., and Stubler, A. D. (2019). Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7, e8247.
| Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Smith, D. R. (2016). Will Publons popularize the scientific peer-review process? BioScience 66, 265–266.
| Will Publons popularize the scientific peer-review process?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |