> Making the reviews transparent wouldn't have mattered because in the end the paper was published. Maybe one of the reviewers raised the issues but it was publ

> Making the reviews transparent wouldn't have mattered because in the end the paper was published. Maybe one of the reviewers raised the issues but it was published anyway, so published reviews would tip a reader off? But at that point where are we? If I had done something (and maybe I still will?), I would have just published it in a public academic archive anyway. To me this makes the case for allowing commentary by non-reviewers pre-publication. The original reviewers may not find all the issues, and if someone happens to, by chance or because they're watching actively for things related to their expertise, there should be a venue for them to make a comment. I've seen a number of substantial back and forths for papers on openreview.net, often by people not initially tapped to review it, and found these discussions to often be as enlightening as the papers themselves, for instance https://openreview.net/forum?id=ry_WPG-A- https://openreview.net/forum?id=ry_WPG-A-