Anonymous peer review is meant to shield reviewers from retaliation, but a new preprint argues that the process itself may leak identifying information. The paper, posted on arXiv, introduces ECHO, a method that reveals review-to-submission linkage by exploiting artifacts released during the review process. This linkage can effectively deanonymize reviewers, the authors contend.
According to the abstract, the risk is growing because many venues now require submitting authors to release additional materials as part of the review workflow. These artifacts, while intended to improve transparency and reproducibility, can become signals that tie a review back to a specific submission. ECHO demonstrates how such signals can be used to break the anonymity guarantee.
The findings raise practical concerns for journals and conferences that rely on anonymous peer review. If review-to-submission linkage becomes easy to compute, reviewers may face pressure or retaliation, undermining the very protection anonymity is designed to provide. The preprint does not propose a specific defense, but it highlights an emerging vulnerability in scholarly communication.