Authors should remain anonymous, so that the temptation for a reviewer to go easy on a 'known scientist' is removed. A journal submission should be judged on the basis of its content, not the history or affiliations of its writers. Transparency has its place (as with the reviewers), but it isn't the solution to all problems!
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:44 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
