Reviewing a reviewer.

We are all authors, but at the same time we are all reviewers. We write articles, anticipate that they will be reviewed quickly and favorably and hope that they will be accepted. We write reviews and anticipate that our recommendations will be honored and our concerns will be addressed. The work of authors is visible and rewarding (if published), the work of reviewers is anonymous and not that gratifying. Most of the time the authors are known while the reviewers are bound under double secrecy: their names cannot be revealed and the proprietary authors' data are also kept confidential and should not be utilized by the reviewers. The authors' contribution is very regimented (must adhere to elaborate guidelines) while on the other side, the reviewers' input is mostly open to improvization. There are some exceptions; for example, when the authors may suggest a reviewer for their manuscript or when reviewers intentionally reveal their identity. What could possibly be the incentive for reviewers to participate, spending time, pointing out someone's mistakes, giving recommendations and sometimes revealing their own ideas? The likely answers might include the satisfaction of being considered an expert, or to be recognized as an active participant in the field, however this brings very modest contentment. There is also the exposure to the new and confidential ideas of competitors with all possible implications. An insider's peek into someone's plans could be crucial, just like having access to the research and development department of a major company, which is why many findings are not published prior to patenting. The reviewer also has the ability to reject an author's approach, being himself an author or a zealot supporter of a different view or being in competition for grants, publications, glory, etc. The reviewer also may speed up his own investigation while postponing others'. The authors may influence a reviewer by guessing who may be a potential reviewer and referencing and praising their work, making it harder for them to reject a paper that has a paragraph acclaiming their work. However, this is a double edged sword and may be harmful if the author acclaims the reviewer's competitor or ignores, even criticizes, the reviewer's contribution. Nobody wants to discuss the dark side; however it does not change the fact that it may happen, though it is very rare. This is where the Chief Editor and the Editorial Board should exhibit moral judgment, …