I think I had that experience once- a paper that was recommended for minor review by two reviewers, and an outright rejection by the third reviewer who was adamant that we hadn't referred to literature in an area that was at best obliquely related to the paper. I discussed it with my more experienced co-author who shrugged her shoulders and said "They're upset that we haven't cited their papers". Since it was a closed review I guess I'll never know!

Hi Donaldo

I have had the experience of having the reviewers named on a paper on which I was a co-author. My previous experience was only of blind review, so it was a new experience. I found that my co-authors and I (and particularly the lead author) attached a gretaer importance to the comments of the reviewer that we perceived had the greater expertise. In many ways it helped us with the issue of "which reviewers comments do I listen to?" I think it made for an easier revision and a better paper in the end.

As a reviewer I have not yet reviewed for a journal that offers the opportunity for reviewers to reveal thier identity. Honestly I am not sure how I'd feel about it. I would be concerned that I would be the less expert reviewer that gets ignored!

I'd be interested to hear from those who have had that expereince.

Regards

David

you mention what might be considered to be the "up"side to non-blinded reviews but my concern, having edited journals for 25 years, is that in a small community, there are grudges and axes to grind that often get in the way in both directions. We have reviewers who insist on signing their reviews and we allow that. But the process can produce a lot of "noise" in the system - phone calls to reviewers, editors in between, hurt feelings, etc. so that on the whole I really don't see the advantage. But there are certainly those who do.

Hi John

Can I just clarify how the reviewers sign their reviews? Do they insist on having their name/position attached to what would otherwise be a blinded review?

Have you noticed a pattern in the people who choose to do that (e.g. particular faculties) or is it very much an individual decision?

Regards

David

Hi David

The journal to which I just submitted a review (which prompted me to ask this question) had an optional space on the online reviewer submission form where I could type in my name (though I left it blank). It also said that my name would not be appear anywhere on the published version of the manuscript. I assume that if I chose to reveal my identity, my name would be attached to my comments - once they know my name, it's simply a matter of a quick Google search. 

I am interested in whether John has noticed any patterns.

Few years back some journals used to copy reviewers while making a final decision so that the reviews of different reviewers were available among themselves. This trend is changed for now. Hence, revealing identity even among reviewers is usually blocked. So, identity exposed at any level looks like a problem in scholarly communication leaving aside identity exposed to authors. 

Unfortunately, there are reviewers which choose to recommend their publications as the base of the knowledge in the field you try to publish. I think they desire to be cited with their work in the reviewed articles.

I think I had that experience once- a paper that was recommended for minor review by two reviewers, and an outright rejection by the third reviewer who was adamant that we hadn't referred to literature in an area that was at best obliquely related to the paper. I discussed it with my more experienced co-author who shrugged her shoulders and said "They're upset that we haven't cited their papers". Since it was a closed review I guess I'll never know!

A blind reviewer can conceal bias while an unblinded one has to avoid bias

En mia opinio, ĉiuj revizioj debas esti apertaj en la paĝo de la revuo. Konsekvence, mi konsilas malfermi via nomo.

In my opinion, to ensure objective review and allow honest evaluation, unanimity would be preferred. While revealing reviewers identity can foster collaboration, the danger will be for the reviewer to lose objectivity in the hope of being contacted by the authors for possible collaboration. Negative reviews are unlikely to lead to such outcome. Also, in the event of negative reviews, one might fear a retaliation from the authors in case they happen to review the reviewer's paper since these authors are likely to publish work in similar venues and with similar research topics. Conflict of interest can be an issue when reviewer's identity is revealed.

Double blind reviewing system stood the test of time, but after acceptance of the article, the reviewer might be consented to put their (review comment, name and affiliation) as an attachment with the published article. This may form a good material for (young researchers and future potential reviewers and editors).