Some academic journals publicly publish reviewer names and allow linking these reviews to reviewer profiles. What do you mostly value in this practice: the benefits (e.g., recognition, transparency) or the risks (e.g., privacy, bias)?
Are you generally positive, negative, or neutral about this?
Please briefly share your thoughts !!
See also these previous discussions on blind and open peer review:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Open_peer-review_is_full_transparency_possible/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_blind_peer-review_honest_Does_it_help_or_disfavor_achieving_an_objective_review_of_journal_papers/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-blind-peer-review-better-than-open-peer-review/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which-i-more-suitable-for-scientfic-journals-blind-peer-review-or-open-peer-review-or-combination-between-the-two/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_peer_review_blind/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_ethical_to_publicise_the_reviewers_comments_on_our_published_paper/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_paper_reviews_made_by_or_to_our_peers_be_published_and_how/1
Wolfgang R. Dick Thank you very much; your input is very valuable. Furthermore, the journal follows a blind review process, but reviewers sometimes publicly show they have reviewed. What do you think—would you like your name to be displayed as a reviewer even within a blind review system?
I have experience with both open and blind peer review. In one case, my review was very critical, and the author (whom I knew well) became very angry when he learned my name. There are pros and cons of open and blind review, but I generally tend to argue for blind peer review. Particularly, If the review process is blind, and some reviewers make their names public, this may cause pressure on other reviewers to follow their example.
I believe we should try to reveal the names. Too many hidden strategies in academia just strenghten the grey areas. Why don't we see reviewing as an academic discussion we all enjoy at conferences? We do people get angry? Would the discourse of harsh reviewers become more encouraging, similar to the one at conferences if we make everything public? I think so. We need more science not more blocks among ourselves.
Yes to some extent but not too much information like publishing review comments to the public
I think that the default should be blind review with an option for the reviewer to share their details.
I think the reviewers should remain anonymous. Sometimes the reviewers know the authors or have a work connection with them. Those types of connections may cause reviewers to decline the opportunity to do the reviews if their names are public, particularly if corrective comments are necessary.
- Badges
- Science topic