There is increasing focus on findings ways to reward peer reviewers for the active and important role they play in advancing research. With this in mind, a blog published in the past week by BioMed Central discusses the topic of “who owns peer review”, and addresses the following question: “As publishers and services like Publons and Academic Karma grapple with how to give credit for peer review (see previous posts here and here), there are some thorny issues to consider. Is it ok for a peer reviewer who has engaged in a closed (anonymous) peer review process (either single-blind or double-blind) to post their reviews openly on an independent website after the paper has been published?”

The blog can be found here.

Additionally, a separate article on this same subject can be found here.