There's a current post which discusses and criticises a manuscript the OP received, which would almost certainly be part of the anonymous peer review process:
[Is DEGSeq software appropriate for gene expression analysis? Are the software statistical assumptions wrong?](https://bioinformatics.stackexchange.com/questions/19134/is-degseq-software-appropriate-for-gene-expression-analysis-are-the-software-st)

Essentially, this is a new post, an entirely anonymous account, publicly criticising a manuscript under anonymous peer review. This to me seems a misuse of Bioinformatics SE. Had the OP linked this to a BioRxIV manuscript that would be different, because the authors would have publicly disclosed the work.

My preference is for this post to be deleted (not closed) to prevent any sort of precedent. I think anyone could see where this is heading if left unchecked, like an "anonymous peer-review WikiLeaks".

---

**Conclusion**
I agree in this particular instance it was sufficiently vague, as the Mods said here. Its a satisfactory conclusion.

The point I'm making is it might be a precedent.

The problems I see for the future are two-fold, i.e. if this was normalised:

1. It potentially breaks journal policy.

* A reviewer is ideally not permitted to discuss the ms without the editors permission. Usually its with named colleague(s) within an institute and permission is granted. The name of the additional reviewer(s) are then formalised within the journal.
* A reviewer is certainly not permitted to influence the other reviewers during the process of first review. This is why permission is required because only the journal knows who the other reviewers are.

2. It could break the UK Data Information Act because the information is held in confidence if the authorship could be identified. It might break copyright.

If the authorship put the ms on BioRxIV then none of the above points really apply.