For one of my recent article which is under peer-review, I got an impression (one of the reviewer explicitly mentioned the comment of the other reviewer ), that the two reviewers are able to/or allowed to read the comments of one another. Does it not negate the purpose of independent and unbiased review system? Or is it just a case where I have been ignorant or uninformed that such a practice exists?
If it does exist? Is this an ethical practice?
What is your problem even if they read? The ultimate aim is to improve the MS.
A review process may or may not improve the quality of an article. There are several instances where published articles have been retracted even after peer review and publication, since the review was inefficient or in some cases, useless. So, in those cases, clearly there was no improvement of the quality of the articles. But my question was, is it ethical when reviewers are able to read each others comments on a common article? Such a review process would leave the article prone to bias decisions and to ethical abuse. Does it not completely nullify the purpose of an unbiased peer review? In my specific case, I am not accusing of any foul play, and as I have written in my question: I got an impression that the two reviewers were able to read each others comments. So the problem here is not specific to my article, but the question is on the principle and purpose of this whole process of peer review. And I would also like to know if certain journals are allowing such cross communication of reviewer comments?
Coming to your last sentence ' And I would also like to know if certain journals are allowing such cross communication of reviewer comments? ' I can assure you that journal editors do not think that there would be cross communication of comments among the reviewers. Occasionally it so happens that the reviewers of a particular MS are working in the same institution and through casual discussions they exchange of the merit or demerit of the MS. Personally I feel that it is better if the reviewers assess a MS independently because chances of improvement from different angles would be more ( not applicable for poor MS which is liable to be rejected). However, in my opinion it is not unethical if the two reviewers go through the comments of each other but assess independently.
Like cricket umpires reviewers are also human beings and there can be errors in their part too. If the two reviewers are unfair in reviewing then that is definitely objectionable.
Ha ha ha, cricket!!!! nice example. Okay, so you dont think it is ethically wrong. Thank you for your honest opinion, I appreciate it.
I will wait and see how other researchers respond.
Generally speaking, comments provided by different reviewers are not shared and the editor is the only person who is allowed to read them. In point of fact, the idea of giving a paper to several reviewers is to provide various analytical and evaluation platforms to the editor and the writer of the article to enrich the quality of the targeted paper. As such, not allowing reviewers to see each other's comments is in line with the aspect of double blind peer review policy and plays the same purpose.
Enjoyed the aforesaid posting. Comments might be different but this is the beauty of RG!!!
Are there disadvantages to a double blind peer review ? What is holding back the Journals from doing this?
In my opinion, every article should be double blind peer reviewed as most of the Positions, grants and funding are dependent on publications of researchers. Since the stakes are high, should it not be mandatory to carry out double blind peer review by all Journals?
In double blind peer review the authors do not know the names of the reviewers and reviewers do not know the names of the authors.
It is highly desirable but unfortunately the predatory journals do not even send the MSS for review!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics