Should the reviewers be declared after the acceptance of an article for publication? Would that not make the review process better, more cooperative and more genuine?
It would certainly make it easier to see what connections they had to industry.
And would make the research publication of an author(s) more sustainable.
In general, the list of reviewers are published once a year.
It seems to me that this knowledge would probably won't changed a lot ...
How can the process become genuine once it is already completed? Even if they declare the reviewers after acceptance, it is not going to make any difference. Yes it is only going to let you know who has done the review of your paper and you would come to know about some experts in your field. If you can benefit yourself from this information, its up to you then.
Regards
I believe most authors would be interested in knowing the reviewers who rejected the manuscript.
As you may guess, there are several review options:
1. double blind review - when reviewer do not know who author is, not only author do not know his reviewer
2. single blind review - most frequently used option, when author is unaware who is reviewer
3. open review - boh are informed.
I also several times have seen fully open review - anyone can take chance to review any paper from the list.
I vote for double blind, this may help less known authors to get success.
But in any case, if review is blind, reviewers personality should not be disclosed. This would be unfair.
Anyway, in many journals there is option "non anonymous" or like it. If you check this, author will know who you are.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications