Should a journal ever reveal the name of an anonymous reviewer?
While I think that blind peer review provides useful protection for reviewers, are Academic Editors generally provided anonymity?


In my experience this is rare but not unheard of.  For example, the PNAS submission guidelines specify that the editor handling the paper will remain anonymous until the paper is accepted.  Presumably this is meant to protect editors from retribution over a rejected paper.  I'm not convinced this is necessary, but the existence of these policies indicates that someone must care.


  Further, is there any precedence for when a journal should reveal the name of a reviewer?


I'm not aware of any policy that allows journals to reveal the name of a reviewer without the reviewer's consent.  It could be reasonable in a case like this, but I wouldn't want to be in charge of writing a policy delineating when it is or isn't allowed.