What could be a reason for a reviewer to avoid discussing a manuscript publicly?

Choosing to avoid discussing a manuscript publicly is primarily rooted in the necessity to maintain privacy and confidentiality. When a reviewer receives a manuscript for evaluation, they are entrusted with sensitive information that is not yet available to the public. This confidentiality is crucial for upholding the integrity of the publication process, as it assures authors that their work will be treated with respect and discretion until it is officially published.

While promoting open scientific debate and gathering insights from third parties can have their merits in certain contexts, these actions may conflict with the confidentiality agreements that reviewers adhere to. Critiquing the review process itself is typically addressed through formal channels rather than public discussion of specific manuscripts. Therefore, the correct choice highlights the ethical responsibility of reviewers to protect the privacy of the authors and the integrity of the review process.