Wanting to know which coworkers are raising feedback in a process that does not provide for anonymous feedback in the first place is not "doxxing" them.
(EDIT: Note that this particular process was not a peer review process - academic peer review is done by people from another institution, and selected by the venue after submitting a paper. This was a pre-submission internal review process which has never been billed as academic peer review.)
Peer review for academic papers is typically anonymous. She would have been familiar with the process. In the end, the editor (in this case the manager) takes responsibility for the decision.
Generally you get some explanation with peer review, to revise and submit. It's a process of revisions and improvements. As far as I've read, not only did the authors not receive any such actionable feedback, but actually a demand to retract. In her shoes, I would think many of us would want to know who is the one behind a decision like that. Someone is putting a roadblock in the standard process and normal execution of my job.
> process that does not provide for anonymous feedback
What makes you say this? Ultimately, the process is determined by Google. She had managers say she couldn't get that information. Why wouldn't that be the end of the conversation with regards to their identities?
The process is determined by Google, yes, but there is a written, established process, which management did not abide by.
Now it is technically true that management does not have to abide by it and can redefine the process at any time, but that doesn't mean saying "The established process is not an anonymous feedback process, what is going on" is doxxing anyone.
Last week at work I was told that a particular internal product was being wound down and was not considered strategic in 2021 planning, and I asked who expressed that desire because my team has a particular technical need for it and I think there are ways to run it more efficiently, and I wanted to have a conversation with them and find an answer that's good for the business. I would have been confused if I was told "I can't tell you that." Was I trying to dox someone?
Given her history and ultimatum, the chances of her doxxing them publicly was high. Given her public response since her resignation, Google's caution in releasing that information appears justified to me.
