Not Forwarding Referee Comments

Recently, one of my papers got rejected at a very good journal that I admire very much and that I have been happy to referee for. The editor accompanied the the rejection with the claim that "our policy is not to send referee's reports or comments on papers that have not been accepted or recommended for revision." I hastened to the journal website and -- indeed! -- the policy is clearly announced in the author's guidelines. So, I have no standing to complain.  Note to self: do read these more carefully in the future.

But...such a policy does come with a foreseeable cost: I am far less inclined to referee for this journal again now that I know there is a good chance my (often elaborate) comments are not forwarded to the author. And even if I were to referee again, it would be with less care and scruples. While a referee report is primarily intended for an editor to make an informed judgment, I always hope that the (refereed) author's work is thereby improved. I do not want to be accused of idealism, but as scholars we really are in this together.

Moreover, I do not see the point of the journal's policy, which, in effect, is a desk rejection by another name. I am not against desk rejections as such -- although I worry about the ways in which these perpetuate disciplinary inequalities --, but what's the point of withholding existing referee comments? Even when one receives clearly moronic comments (and, yes, they exist), one can't (and need not) appeal an editor's decision. The journal appears to think that not forwarding referee reports allows them to speed up the decision procedure, but why this would be so escapes my understanding.

So, what do readers think? Also, is such a policy widespread; anybody know of journals that have such a policy formally or informally?