On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be, too. I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews should be double-blind.
While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it also protects them from retribution for simply being honest when a paper is bad. Yes, scientists should all be mature enough to accept a negative review without trying to punish the reviewer, but some just aren't up to that challenge (if you can't think of a way for one scientist to punish another, or if you can't think of a scientist who would do such a thing, you can't be trying that hard). Even if you can't imagine deliberately punishing someone for their review, you must be able to imagine being miffed at a colleague who gives your paper a bad review, or having them be miffed at you, even if the bad review is merited. That's an incentive to be polite, sure, but also an incentive to let things slide that shouldn't be allowed to slide. I think the benefits of reviewer anonymity outweigh the costs. Author anonymity would have a similar advantage: it would make it harder for reviewers to pan someone's work just because they don't personally like the author, or to reward their friends with favorable reviews. Obviously, if the reviewer is quite familiar with the author's other work, it is possible to identify the author by writing style, study system, and hypotheses raised, but any uncertainty about the authorship of a paper under review should go one step toward dissuading reviewers from letting personal feelings hold too much sway over their judgement. Author anonymity could also prevent reviewers from judging authors and their works harshly based on their earlier submission of an unpublishable paper. If you thought someone's submitted paper was a real dog, you might not think much of their intelligence, and you'd give less credence to anything else they said subsequently. If the author were genuinely a poor scientist, you'd be ahead of the game by learning to doubt them early on, but if they were a solid researcher, and their name were on a bad paper for any of a hundred other possible reasons, you'd be cheating yourself by selling them short. (Sorry for taking another step down this tangental path. Also, I wish our language had a singular pronoun for a person of unspecified sex.) Jim Crants On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Marc Kochzius <kochz...@uni-bremen.de>wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
