John Phillips wrote:
Who checks to see if the submitter is presenting a fair picture of the review? If it is no one, then there is the chance (hopefully rare) that the submitter will present a skewed version of what happened in the review. If it is one person, that person is the de-facto review manager, since that person has the single largest responsibility of the review manager (checking all the reviews and determining the best available recommendation). If it is the whole tie-breaker group, then there are many people doing the work that used to be done by one. If it is supposed to come from the participants, then the discussion of the submitter's version of the review becomes another review and little is gained (if anything).
I agree that it could be incredibly hard for a submitter to prepare an impartial summary of the opinions of the reviewers and that not everyone will want to do so. That said, if a submitter is willing and able to go through this experience, we might consider granting him/her the opportunity if a review manager hasn't turned up for, say, three months.