well, the basic idea to keep the reviewers secret is to avoid embarrassment between colleagues. The editor at timmes gets some strange comments from the reviewers, which he has to keep confidential like a catholic priest the confessions of sinners, but ist is the other way round: It is the condemnations of the olympic gods of science, which are hidden to the prdinary humans, which is channeled down. I happened to see some of those (emails), which at times are quite embarrassing.
Reviewers don't know about each other, only the editor knows. So his sincerity is essential. This is about ten years ago, and even if I could remember exactly, I would not tell, because somehow I belong to the cartel via friendship, if you will. ( I was not aware of the explosivity of this then. I was just amazed because I did not belong to the cartel, and my professional existence did not depend on it.) The reputation of a journal depends on this confidentialty. A very strange constellation indeed. Upon writing this, I get conscious of that. Self-soul-searching. You know what I mean. Guenter ________________________________ Von: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> An: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Gesendet: 20:55 Donnerstag, 26.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:future of academic publishing Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> wrote: (The editors are, ofcourse, the reviewers not) It is basically the editor and the advisory board, which determine who is the competent decider (reviewer) wrt what is valuable in the field. >In ordinary life on would call that incest. In ordinary business this would be called a violation of the antitrust laws, or a conflict of interest. Publishing is ordinary business, so that's what I call it. - Jed
