An important point in Murray's post is that often big names get published no
matter what the reviewer says. This is especially common in conference
proceedings, where the famous are invited and often give condescending talks
that always get published no matter how crappy they are.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Efford" <murray.eff...@otago.ac.nz>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: terça-feira, 2 de Março de 2010 20:02
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
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
