Who benefits from the anonymity of the peer review process? I was reading an answer to another question, which says on the topic of a reviewer potentially contacting an author under a special set of circumstances


  Some would say you should wait until it is public, so as not to break the anonymity of the reviewing process. Others think it is fine to reveal yourself and contact the author directly  


My first thought was "The anonymity is there to protect the reviewer, so of course he can give up the protection and initiate contact". But then I realized that maybe there are other people whose interests might be hurt if this happens. 

So, let's assume that the anonymous person (the reviewer, and in some cases also the author), always benefits from his own anonymity. Is there somebody else who is interested in the reviewer remaining anonymous?
The readers and the editors can benefit.

I know this is a contended issue, and there are many different views.

But as you've asked specifically whether there's somebody else who is interested in the reviewer remaining anonymous, let's just look at that.

As a reader, I want the peer review to have been fair and thorough.

If the reviewer is able to review freely, without fear of comeback, then they can be much more frank. They can shoot down a bad paper, even if one of the authors or one of their colleagues could hold some kind of power over the reviewer, whether it be funding, future job applications, peer reviews with the roles switched, whatever. Anonymity may enable reviewers to be more frank, more honest, and more direct in their reviews. And that directness can be of benefit to the editors, too.

I'm not saying this is the way. I'm not saying this has to be the way. I'm discussing possibilities here.

It would be great to have some solid evidence on the pros and cons of anonymity. At the moment, there seems to be a great deal of discussion, but I don't see much science on the subject.