Dear all, I think that authors should be anonymous. This prevent reviewers from looking at the names of authors and forming a preconception about the paper before it is even read. I think that this is particularly important in the cases where very well-known authors submit articles. They are given the benefit of the doubt before the paper is even read.
Having said that, it is often fairly simple to at least guess the group of authors or the lab based on the sites or material being discussed. The same can often be said for the reviewers themselves based on who you recommended as a reviewer and the types of comments you get in return. The idea behind anonymous reviews is that you can feel free to give your honest opinion without offending the authors or burning potential collaborative bridges in the future. I agree with having reviews be anonymous. I also agree with previous statements that the editors should make sure that reviews are reasonable before sending them back to authors. As a reviewer, I would also appreciate getting feedback back from the editor as to the quality of my review and whether it was adequate. We all start reviewing manuscripts with only the previous experience of having been reviewed to guide us. I think we could all benefit from constructive criticism regarding the reviews we send out. Meaghan Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -----Original Message----- From: Marc Kochzius <kochz...@uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:44:59 To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous? Dear All, I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review. That's what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals that insist that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is that some colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not adequate (e.g. impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in this context are the editors. I think it is their responsibility to check if a review is adequate. However, my experience is rather that most editors just pass the review to me and I just wonder what kind of reviews I receive. In many cases there is absolutely no quality control regarding the reviews. From many journals I also never get a feedback about my review, nor do I receive the reports of the other reviewers. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate if my review was in concordance with the other reviewers. Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as possible. Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all. Cheers, Marc Kevin Murray wrote: > Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed. > Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named. > > Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!! > > Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then > posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not > post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email. > > KLM > > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg > <greenb...@ucdavis.edu>wrote: > > >> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your >> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who >> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum? >> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that >> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a >> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post >> these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of reviews >> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find >> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end >> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)? >> >> --j >> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg <jgrn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your >>> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who >>> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum? >>> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that >>> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a >>> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post >>> these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of reviews >>> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find >>> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end >>> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)? >>> >>> --j >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown <cabr...@tntech.edu> >>> >> wrote: >> >>>> Jonathan, >>>> >>>> As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was from a >>>> review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from the >>>> editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own, >>>> confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the reviews >>>> should remain unpublished in any form. >>>> >>>> CAB >>>> ******************************************** >>>> Chris Brown >>>> Associate Professor >>>> Dept. of Biology, Box 5063 >>>> Tennessee Tech University >>>> Cookeville, TN 38505 >>>> email: cabr...@tntech.edu >>>> website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >>>> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg >>>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM >>>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >>>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous? >>>> >>>> Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I know >>>> REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to be >>>> anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum? >>>> >>>> --j >>>> >>>> > >
