As an editor of a journal I have been surprised to find only a single time in five years that a review was possibly unfair, and that one was unfairly positive. It has been refreshing to find that most people review manuscripts objectively despite personal disgruntlements with individuals or disagreements with selected methodology. They tend to be fair.
Occasionally, a reviewer is unnecessarily insulting or gruff.....I personally believe this is uncalled for. People worry too much about reviewers. Malcolm On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Jonathan Greenberg <greenb...@ucdavis.edu>wrote: > Wow, I clearly hit on a painful topic here! I've been getting asked > on-list and off- to clarify, a bit, why I might want to do what my > original question was about: make the reviews (but not the identity of > the reviewers) I've received of my OWN papers public to other people. > I would hazard to guess 99% of us have had a least one paper rejected > due to a reviewer who did a less-than-stellar job at reviewing a paper > -- whether laziness, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, politics, > competition on a subject that the reviewer may be trying to get > published themself, etc (how often have you thought "Did this person > even read my paper?"). There don't seem to be a lot of forums out > there to shed light on "good reviews" vs. "bad reviews" -- we receive > them, we complain to our co-authors and other people we are close to, > but, as my OP indicated, I wanted to know if we could turn around and > show the world these types of reviews in an attempt, not as revenge > (since the reviewer remains anonymous), but to let people know these > types of reviews are unhelpful and can really damage the scientific > process, hopefully to get across to the people producing these bad > reviews they need to think about how they treat their role in the > peer-review process, and to teach new reviewers how to write good > reviews. > > I want to clarify a point: I don't mean that a "bad review" is one in > which your paper is rejected, a "bad review" I define a bad review as > one that does little to help improve a paper that may have potential. > > --j > > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Murray Efford > <murray.eff...@otago.ac.nz> wrote: > > James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor > paper by a high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors > and disregard of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing > and signed the review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious > acknowledgment of my contribution. This should not have got past the > editors, but it did, and I will not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity > serves to depersonalise the review process and dilute the pernicious effects > of status and reputation. > > > > Murray Efford > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ > ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants [jcra...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 5:39 a.m. > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous? > > > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Fall (odd years) Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Spring (even) years: Vertebrate Histology - TR 1-2:40pm Genetics - MW 1-2:40pm Herpetology - W 6-10pm Summer (even years): Wildlife Biology Wildlife Techniques Fall (even years): Ecology Molecular Cell Biology Vertebrate Biology Spring (odd) years: Genetics Landscape ecology & GIS Environmental Physiology Summer (odd years): Vertebrate Field Biology 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
