Create a Reviewer role for the existing Conversation tool to allow an Associate Editor to start a conversation with reviewers in the event that there are wildly diverging recommendations (with the option to blind identities, if desired).
Sometimes reviewers spot strengths and/or faults in research that the other reviewer(s) missed, but because these reviews are basically written in a silo there is no opportunity for reviewers to compare notes until after a final decision has been made. This new role would allow reviewers with greatly differing opinions to converse and possibly change their recommendations, which could significantly reduce the number of revisions a manuscript goes through and thus cut down on turnaround time overall.
