When I write a review, I write several paragraphs to pages pointing out strengths and weaknesses, asking for clarification, new approaches, etc. I then send tha

When I write a review, I write several paragraphs to pages pointing out strengths and weaknesses, asking for clarification, new approaches, etc. I then send that to the editor who packages all the reviews together in the form of a letter to the authors. The authors in turn respond to that letter point by point in their own letter. Its more like email than a publication. In terms of whether reviews should be public, there are pros and cons to anonymous review. The cons are easy to see. When I read a paper I don't know whether the reviewers asked a question and gotten a response about a concern I have about the paper. Often clarifying results in response to a reviewer's inquiry can be shared in the letter but never make it into the paper. I always ask for a brief sentence describing those additional checks to be put into the paper briefly or in supplemental, but that is me. The pros of anonymous unpublished reviews are slightly more nuanced. Sometimes stupid but innocent mistakes happen, and these can be embarrassing. Part of the value of review is having the chance to have fresh eyes on it, but doing so in public view can push people to get grounded in their position as a matter of reputation. Another issue is that criticizing a paper from a well known research is a bit harder when it will be published, and especially when it isn't anonymous.