Of course, hiding author's details the review process is fairer. I have published in a journal that requires even the author's name to be hidden. However, in most journals, the author identification is compulsory. Indeed, those journals with blind peer review process are fairer; but there is no way of imposing any fairness degree to editors. Perhaps, by encouraging manuscript submissions only to those journals with blind process, this kind of journals will be increased.

It is just a compulsory requirement, but what is the benefit in revealing the author details? or what is the problem for hiding the author details? On the other hand I find that some politics will play by revealing them and loose the chances of honest review.

Thanks

A blind review is more objective. There is no influence of the author's profile. In logics, "argumentum ad verecundiam" or "argument from authority" must be rejected. If the manuscript author is not known, the acceptance cannot be consequence of the author's profile. Likewise, rejecting a blindly reviewed manuscript, cannot be by the lack of author's prestige.

Some years ago, a good journal devoted to artificial intelligence research, required all manuscripts to be anonymous and written in third person, in order to obstruct any possible author identification by the reviewers.

Yes, I strongly agree Juan....

Dear all

This becomes clearer when the ideas and conceptions of the submitted paper bring with them new non traditional concepts. But I agree with Pandey that the most difficulty for say non famous author or non famous author s institution is in crossing the editors.

Dear Prashant

You are right, editors impose their criteria, but referees are consulted to help editors. Biased results are more likely when both can take biased decisions, than when one of them is more objective.

Its a 100% must. If the content of a paper or the ideas would become clearer for the referees with authors name the author(s) must do some execises to illuminate their work better. The referee has to do some exercises to gain the essential objectivity.

(I`m retired but working some times as a reviewer).

So Juan and Prashanth: I would say the author details must be hidden even to editors. From a general email id other than institution id. Authors give their details after acceptance of the manuscript. I know, the idea is too conservative...

Dear Hanno,

I think that you are right with respect to yourself. But in this world there are all possible behaviors. In some science, like maths, the only reason to accept a paper must be the logical proofs. I cannot figure out any logical inference arising from the author's profile in a rational proof.

I know at least a case in which one researcher A works as referee in a journal J, while another researcher B works as referee in other journal K. The referee A has a lax criterion when analizing a B's manuscript, and vice versa. Something like occurs with respect to citations.

I beg to disagree!!! I do not think it should matter whether author's details is provided or not. Even when details are provided, a good reviewer would not even bother to look or know the name of the author. The editor and reviewers focus should be on the merit regardless of who the author(s) is. Really, if we have now got to the stage where we think that the best way to get a fair review of research work is by hiding author's details, I think it is time to rethink the whole peer review process.

An article published in Science this week raised question about peer review. It is worth a read:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

I agree with Sam... I have also come across with some other highly reputed journals including 'Science' that questions are raised about peer review. According to Pandey's friend's experience, the question is about the editor's action. Me and some of my friends also experienced the same. So this is not only rare happenings. That is why I suggested, that too conservative action that there should be a procedure of hiding the authors' details from editor and reviewer until the acceptance. Seems to be harsh.

A "blind" review certainly sounds very appealing, but it Is regrettably an "Utopia"... since by reading the manuscript (for whom, who is really well aware of a given field) is highly improbable not to found out who the authors are... Probably, the only thing less clear would be their order, but these are only details... Therefore, I do not see any practical advantage in "hiding" the authors names and affiliation in the reviewer process...

Dear Colleagues,

We need to realize, that the market of scientific publications, is first and foremost a pretty good business. This aspect play the first role in all the actions, before you get a book or magazine - the final commercial product.

Publishers (especially those with the traditions and reputation) have always on the first place the motto of "safe money", and it is no wonder, that in the name of these "safe money" for print will be selected articles (books) authors with recognized names, because as with any business, the known and respected names are a guarantor of success.

In this situation, we should not be surprised, that the more reputable publisher, the more influence of editors on the process of reviewing. That is the reality...

Had a look at the question of the ideal - as it should be, of course, the reviewing process should be anonymous - both in terms of names of authors, and institutions which they represent.

Dear Juan-Esteban,

thanks for Your comment. Indeed the multiple peer review is done in order to eliminate such individual lax criteria by comparing the possibly different judges of the chosen reviewers. Your comment regarding the citations is indeed an unsolved problem. Just imagine Your own "very important" paper isn´t mentioned?

Yes Andrzej, all these are a kind of business. I am realizing the facts.

Basically my family has a business background and I quit those business activities (15 years ago) to concentrate in research, not only that, I am not good in business and rolling money and business commodities what we had. Now I realize that to become a reputable researcher, I have to have reputable articles, patents and I doubt that I am again going back to a business researcher. Doing research, getting funds etc. all are business.

Dear all

Thanks for you worthy comments , but just want to add it's nice to make money

But sometimes making money contradicts developing science. The priority must be for science but unfortunately nowadays the priority is for making money.

Why not thinking on a fair open reviewing process where authors, reviewers and editor make comments, answers and details following a discussion process like in RG, without any blinding of authors or referees.

In my opinion if a paper is submitted for evaluation (revision), it means that authors have obtained approval from their director, laboratory or institute and may be a first peer reviewing by their research team. So as a journal referee could I have sufficient arguments to make judgment on the work behind the paper? is it coherent for me to reject the paper which means that i have reproved the affiliation ' I do never do that even if paper needs further revisions'.. I think that the referring must follow a first step from paper content acceptance or not from the editors. If the editor is OK with the paper idea then he asks for referring process.

What do you think about ??

For me the most important thing is the quality of the review process and that the selected reviewers are really experts in the subject of the paper that you want to publish. The editor should request the views of 2 or more reviewers, and not one reviewer that happen many times, and in case of discrepancies between them whether the paper should be published or not, the editor should take a fair decision on whether to support the proposal of those reviewers who are in favor of publishing the paper or those who are in favor not to do so.

Of course, I assume the principle that papers submitted for publication have the necessary quality for this purpose and contain new ideas on the subject concerned.

In principle, I am in favor that papers submitted for publication should contain the author’s data and that the answers given by the supervisors also contain their personal data. We must prevent a very harmful tendency that the reviewers reject a paper sometime using arguments that are not very serious or convincing, leaving the authors without the ability to reject these arguments and to convince the editors that the assessment made by the supervisors cannot be considered.

Thank you all and I appreciate your contributions to this thread!

Knd Regards

Lijo

In a general manner, and like for clinical study of new treatments, hiding these "parameters" would be good to increase the "objectivity" of judgment. Possible or not ? accepted or not by the journals ? I don't now.

But I like thé expression, because often verified (said for money given by banks): "one rents only to rich people" (as they are the ones who would need it the less)

Regards

Didier

Hi to all: Both the approaches, hiding or not, have advantages/disadvantages. For instance, if you the author(s), at first place one can know the plagiarism is going to take place or not. The possibility of plagiarism is most likely, if the reviewer does not know the authors, as reputation can help prevent this phenomenon, of course not cent per cent. And the benefit of reviewing manuscript with hidden authors can help avoiding "biasing" in some cases where mutual interest prevailing.

To my opinion, the educated people in scientific world should come up at a level of understanding that no "plagiarism and biasing" should overshadow the process of paper publications. although this expectation may be a daydream. VIVA

One aspect important for me as a reviewer was not mentioned so far in the discussion (except for Faramarz Seraji in his answer, he discussed possible plagiarism): Authors usually cite a number of their own papers and few reviewers will know exactly what they had published before without back-reading. As a rule, I should be able to conclude from the Refs list, which group submitted the publication (only with completely new research topic this might be different, but those are rare events). Therefore, it does not make too much sense to conceal the author's names, rather we should try to make sure to write reviews comprehensibly for the authors and editors.

Arnulf: I partly agree with you. A significant percentage of the victims are beginners and they might not have much self citations. Then comes to politics and competitive groups. Once I have come across in a discussion that ,due to a female first author, the reviewer was slightly doubtful about the authenticity of the work; a really stupid argument. All these matters compelled me to put on this thread.

If the referees are good it should not matter. A good paper from an 'unknown' should be accepted and a bad paper from a 'well known' should be rejected. I used to think it should be anonymous, but now I don't mind either way.

I think that each journal editors have their own policies from visibility, reputation and marketing parameters as well as their sponsorship following, which is normal.

In another side, researchers are affiliated to research organizations ‘private or governmental’. Their researches are sponsored by private and/or public funds (may be the same as some journals sponsorship’s). Generally a research team 'in a serious and standard lab or institute' is supervised and managed by an experimented chief or director; usually this director approve the paper content and the journal selection before submission;. I think that a reviewer couldn’t influence the criterion of acceptation or rejection, firstly by respect to the authors and to their affiliation and sponsorship, and secondly they do not (couldn’t) interfere within journals’ rules. A reviewer (which is a volunteer) only helps authors and editor to a better paper quality. The decision of publication or not follows the journal’s strategy. And if a journal and a research institute own same sponsorships, it is natural that the journal publishes ‘or makes preference to ’papers originated from this institute, which is also normal! So the question remains for small lab or institutes' with no sufficient funds' and for less developed countries (those following bad rules, with unknown researchers and non serious research; generally they do not solicit high impact journals !!)

Yes the question still remains. there is only way to solve the issue is that to be honest to the self without any prejudice.

The same is true for grant review as well. Often in committee, you see reviewers giving brakes to well famous researchers while being hard on less established researchers. Or reviewers being nicer with young investigator. Although I agree that reviews should be blind; nonetheless, a very good example is abstract revision for American Heart Association scientific session meeting (which is blind since 3 years now) and basically did not change much in term of the acceptance, pretty much the same groups are presenting every year.

Dear all

I agree that rejection of paper is not a wish for any author , but sometimes it may give benefit in rising paper level specially if the rejection report was worthy in it's notes.

Yes Lijo

You're right. Your comment has inspired me to write some reflections. I mean about the solutions applied at a time when scientific publishers were in their infancy, barely getting started. Maybe that's why the development of science was not then as it is now so rapid, and published resource materials was not grow literally in the eyes, scientists could to participate "live" in the process of scientific review, that often takes place directly in the journal, in the form of exchanges of opinion by editor(s), author(s), and possibly other interested researchers.

I must admit that today miss such solutions - I feel, that missing the journals leading such editorial policy.

Paradoxically, the time of the publication of the text in a refereed journal at the beginning of the twenty-first century, tends to be longer than it did in the second half of the nineteenth century and at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries .

Bureaucratic review process has been expanded now to such gigantic proportions, that it is probably last minute, to we ask ourselves the question, whether such a publishing procedure in our time is still acceptable.

I think that famous researchers must be valued and esteemed for their endeavor and for their offering for science and human knowledge. It is their hard work that makes them famous, not any people event !! as well young investigators must be encouraged in their findings !!!

Here is my answer as Chief Editor of two impact factor journals: it is better to show full author details because, if you hide them it is really easy to find details by reading the paper, as authors usually print "in previous work we...". Also Chief Editors should select papers solely based on science, not author origin, university, etc. No Chief Editor has any interest in selecting according to author details, simply because this is a bias, and Chief Editors are first interested by their impact factor. See also http://fr.slideshare.net/lichtfouse/scientific-writing-for-impact-factor-journals

Yes Eric most editors are first interested by their impact factor, so the authors' affiliation is very important for that issue; how editor could choose between a paper originated from a reputed university and in the same time another from an unknown or less ranked one. The choice is evident... as pointed by Andrzej Szymanskito in its post: "We need to realize, that the market of scientific publications, is first and foremost a pretty good business"

Dear all

I agree with Fairous, the famous names in publication have the major part of accepted papers, because the matter becomes like Hollywood films production where famous actors have the major priority in making films because this in it's own may increase the chances of film success.

Of course the famous actors have their values, at the same time If the script is not good, no matter who is acting the film will be a big failure.

Dear Lijo

That s right , we assume the paper has no problems in its originality but what I meant was if new ideas are suggested by a famous publisher is easier to be accepted to publication than when the same ideas are suggested by a non famous author.

I agree 100% with Lijo's observation: In my view, Editors are highly biased in favour of reputed Authors and Institutions and same may be true in case of Reviewers. After all, our journals follow the laws of Market economy.

Authors' names should be revealed. On the other hand, the content itself will disclose in many occasions who the authors could be. In case of clinical trial the listing in the web-side will give a "very sure" hint who the authors could be.

Dear friends: Good discussions going on. I think by taking all the concerned parties in the present discussion in to account, i.e., the editors, authors, and the reviewers, etc., one can immediately sum up all the views as appropriate but with some exceptions in each case. We should consciously accept that publishing companies are not some sort of "paper factory", just like sausage factories, taking any material as input and then giving out a tasty bundle. Honesty makes the scientific world "CLEAN", without a need of concealing or revealing the main player(s), that is, the Authors, during paper assessment. VIVA

E. Gatti has valid reason to guess about Authors Identity. I could make a valid guess about Id of Authors of Indian Papers. Most journals ask Authors to suggest names of reviewers, which makes the Id of author known to Reviewers easily.

Following the idea of market economy, may be a categorization of journals is needed, from high class, middle class, towards economic class. Famous names and famous affiliation are necessary to science and they are greeted and thanks for their contributions in sharing new findings and data and for their involvement to democratize science. As well small lab or unknown or lesser known people could also benefit from their wish to be able to share their knowledge, effort or ideas. So for that issue journals dedicated to this middle class of lab or researchers will be welcomed as well for those dedicated to poor countries where tools and funds are not sufficient or absent but where may be valuable ideas or thinking are not known.

I feel authors names and address must not appear in the body of manuscript. Authors name and institution details may influence the publication in a journal.Finally the Editors reserve the right to accept or reject the paper that are not in accordance with the reviewers comments and journal instruction.Some journals remove authors name and affiliation before sending the paper to reviewers for comments.

No; blind review is better and unbiased and some journals do double blind review

Thank you, all for being part of this thread!

Kind Regards

Lijo

Hiding authorship is a better way indeed.

I think that the peer-review process should not be influenced by the authors' name of the paper both if the names are visible or not to the reviewer. But I also think, about my experience, that the name of the authors or in general of the research group often influences the reviewer. Sometimes a paper from a group of great renown is published in short times even if the paper is not of good quality. On the other hand, sometimes it could happen that if the authors are quite unknown the paper is rejected or deep revised.

I am Chief Editor of two journals, Lecturer of scientific writing and communication, Head of two publication assistance services, and author of the book Scientific Writing for Impact Factor Journals. A good editor should not be influenced by authors details simply because a good editor evaluates science, not author origin. Therefore it is really not necessary to hide author names and addresses because the Editor will find that suspicious, and most Editors receive tens of papers per day nowadays, so the decision will be very quick and easy...

After reading all the answers, I think that to avoid any doubt on impartality of the process (even if it is claimed without sense .. to doubt), we have to hide identity, and this wouldn't have bad consequences to do that.

If hiding identity in a process was without interest, why is it required in offcial examinations, diploma, votes in democraties and so on ? … also required in case/control study (blind study), where we hide "identity" of the treatment for evaluation of drugs… Because , to my mind, and even if it can be uncounscious, it can interfere with objectivity of analysis.

Regards

Didier

@ Didier, I completely agree with your personal view and conclusion.

Dear All, Concealing and revealing of authors' names in a manuscript in the time of refereeing both have got advantages/disadvantages, maybe equally. BUT, in scientific world, only "honesty" talks first, no matter the authors' names are known to reviewers or not.

To avoid all kinds of impartality, authors' details while the articles are being sent for peer-review should be hidden.

Thank you dear Prof.Mahfuz, for your opinion!

I agree totally with Dr. Mahfuz. Hiding the authors names and addresses prevent any conflict of interests and avoid any doubt in the reviewers decision.

Regards