In the context of peer review it’s common, or at least not uncommon, for reviewers to be anonymous. Personally I think it should be completely blind both directions to promote maximum objectivity.

Whether that applies at all in this case is a separate matter.

This tweet may explain why the reviewers do not want to be confronted:

> Nothing like a bunch of privileged White men trying to squash research by marginalized communities for marginalized communities by ordering them to STOP with ZERO conversation. The amount of disrespect is incredible. Every time I think about it my blood starts boiling again.

https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824

That's in court, or whatever, not academic or industrial anonymous peer review.

It is. It's not a request you're ever going to get when you're dealing with the HR department, though.

Which puts you in a no-win situation when you suspect that HR is doing shady stuff against you...