Wouldn't that make the review process more efficient (and probably more genuine)?
As an author, when you publish for the first time, it is indeed possible to stay "anonymous". After that, you make inevitably reference to your previous work and so it is very difficult to mask you !
This is the main reason that I belive it impossible to use an anonymous reviewing process. Have a look to the review system used by "Frontiers in"
( http://www.frontiersin.org/about/reviewsystem ), in which both authors and reviewers stay "visible" and which is followed by an evaluation system
( http://www.frontiersin.org/about/evaluationsystem ).
This system was "validated" by the scientific community and several journals display interesting Impact Factors after a few years of operation.
In many respects I don't think it matters, if you are a fair reviewer.
Yes it is quite fair and even some publishers also following similar statergy.
As an author, when you publish for the first time, it is indeed possible to stay "anonymous". After that, you make inevitably reference to your previous work and so it is very difficult to mask you !
This is the main reason that I belive it impossible to use an anonymous reviewing process. Have a look to the review system used by "Frontiers in"
( http://www.frontiersin.org/about/reviewsystem ), in which both authors and reviewers stay "visible" and which is followed by an evaluation system
( http://www.frontiersin.org/about/evaluationsystem ).
This system was "validated" by the scientific community and several journals display interesting Impact Factors after a few years of operation.
Good point, but almost for the same purposes, self citation should be reduced. Anonymity of the authors that reduces self citation may not only improve the revision process but also make the paper more of merit than of impact, and encourages the anonymous author in the end to publish more (and better) papers.
Several journals enables the author to send a reply to the reviewer, although he is anonymous. So, it is not a matter to know the reviewer. To eplor the reviewer name may open several channels of discussion between both author and reviwer, where the reviewer may has no time. However, I agree with you to explore the reviewer name. At this case the reviewer is the only person who decide either to continue this discussion or not depending on his free time.
I agree: I don't think it matters, if you are a fair reviewer. But (!) some reviewers accept some manuscripts only because of the name of some famous and respected researcher, although the article (manuscript) does not having the required quality.
I vote for a double-blind system, with a disclosure, after the paper is accepted, who reviewers were. Reviews would be be taken more seriously, I suppose. What if the manuscript is rejected?!
Well, the review of journals is called 'BLIND REVIEW' so, the reviewers should not know who is the author... but, sometimes if the author is really in a very niche area this author would be recognised by the reviewer.
Regards
Theodora Issa
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry