Reviewers perform an important role that results in the improved quality of a publication. However, with the exception of a few proceedings and books, they are not identified in the peer reviewed publication. Moreover, some reviewers pass on the job of reviewing to a Post-Doc who, in attempting to impress his/her mentor, will exceed the responsibility of a reviewer. Among the items such "replacements" usually impart of the required revision, is the identification of additional experiments which fall beyond the question posed by the author(s) of the submitted study. In addition, if the review process was less than required, and yet the submission is recommended for publication, that reviewer would be associated publicly with that "faux pas". If the identity of the reviewer is prominent in an published study, some of the negative aspects of peer review might be reduced given the need for receiving credit for a job well done. I welcome the "pros and cons" relevant to the question asked in order that the question may be tabled or pursued as a common process in scientific publications.
Hi Max - always good to have 'personal' threads ' that also inform'. Yes - I'm in Palmerston North and have been so for the last 8-years after leaving the UK. Massey is a good university, I agree, but particularly since the 'new' VC arrived about 5-years ago. Not sure when you were here - but the university has very good future strategy in place.
I agree with your sentiments. Most reviewers do it because 'they want to' and there is nothing in it for them other than 'to assist, nurture etc'. From my experience, most feedback to authors is valid but, at the same time, is more likely to lean towards the negative than the positive - and that's not a bad thing for developing good copy in my mind. I do, however, occasionally come across 'blockers'; those that are either inexperienced or 'angry' and offer destructive, rather than constructive, feedback. I wonder if part of the editorial responsibility is not to filter those 'blockers' out. On the other hand, authors have to work out when feedback is deconstructive for the sake of it - and when it is needed
Examiners of theses are asked if they mind their identity being revealed. I always tick "Don't mind", as I do not expect any repercussions. I would welcome a similar question for referees of papers. By ticking "Don't mind", I could build up evidence of my refereeing to put in my CV. I suggest that the right place to position the referee list is immediately after the author line "Refereed by: ..."). It will also give visibility to exactly how many referees refereed!
Why not ? Identity of a reviewer can definitely be disclosed in the title of the paper! I wonder whether reviewers are paid for their job, at least they can be given credit, in this form! Besides, everyone will know who has done the job !
I think keeping the referees confidential ensures somewhat more objective reviews. If the reviewers are known, the outcomes can be influenced by large corporates with deep wallets.
It is nice to get recognition for reviewing, but this information I keep between myself, my professional association and the Journals.
I authorize puclishers to give the author(s) my feedback, but not my details.
In closed publications reviewers could be mentioned in the acknowledgement section, if they are known. Since I favour OA publishing, I would expect all reviews being open, i.e. full names given with all comments. This would also minimise conflict of interests, which for now can only be avoided by good-will.
From my point of view, hiding your identity could lead to the troubles @David is mentioning above. The reviewers could have even been paid for their work by 'deep wallets' without the chance of being known.
I am not interested in the "pay for review quality" aspect. I am focusing on the identity of the reviewer as the means by which the highest quality of the review process may be achieved. If the process is deficient it focuses on the reviewer. This possibility alone may serve to improve the review process.
I think the whole process of peer review needs an overhaul and you've identified one of its bigger issues.
In my opinion, it must be there. They are doing tremendous job for improving the quality of journal. Why not they should enjoy the credit?
I agree with Benjamin Laufer...
I tired of writing "Thanks to the anonymous reviewers for..." in my Acknowledgements section, when I could be personalising it.
I see a number of arguments for NOT revealing the names of referees, and display their names prominently on the publication.
As a referee, I may have had grave concerns with the paper, even recommended its rejection. If the paper would still be published, based on an editorial decision, I would not want to have my name displayed on the paper as most would interpret this as I had given the paper my stamp of approval.
As an author, I might have had to refute a bunch of ignorant comments by a bad referee. Why should the name of that person be displayed on my paper?
But my main concern is simply that non-anonymous comments will certainly be less critical than anonymous ones. When we use external experts to assess applications for academic promotion, by Swedish law, their names and comments are made public. It is quite clear, especially in small, tight-knit research fields, that it's hard to obtain completely unbiased evaluations, as these might prevent colleagues to get promotion, leading to animosities.
Being public will also result in more people simply deciding to decline requests to review papers, just to avoid possible conflicts with upset authors. Obtaining referees for timely manuscript reviews is already a big problem.
In a fair and ideal world there would be no need for anonymity of reviewers however this is not the case and as such the system can;t change. Unfortunately there are always a few authors who do not cite prior work objectively which needs to be picked up on as it is one of the worst things any author can do. I, like Ian, am happy to have my identity known in 99.9% of cases alas its the 0.1% where it would be impossible. The other reason is of course authors quite often are asked to suggest suitable reviewers and they of course would suggest reviewers of whom they have had previous good experiences of. I always appreciate it when I see thanks to the reviewer knowing it was me- that in itself is enough.
I note several commentaries that potentially advocate the displaying of reviewer details as a form of acknowledgement. For a number of journals that I review for - that is done on an annual basis - as an acknowledgement of all reviewers who have contributed in that year (or previous year). OK - some reviewers may have contributed several times and others only the once but, for me, that's not an issue; I'm still acknowledged, I can see the calibre of my co-reviewers - and the process still remains anonymous.
Any good work should be appreciated in one form or other. More than anything else, it encourages, inspires, motivates one to do many more. A reviewer's job is good, taxing and essential and so the minimum that can be done, is to mention the name, in the article !
Fair point Phillip. Your last points, although unlikely to be implemented universally, could act as a 'filter' against 'careless' article submissions. Authors might be more wary about 'getting it right'. That said, a poor submission is usually a poor submission and, even, with radical amendment would probably still be rejected.
The placement of a reviewer's name for a publication is not one of acknowledgement (credit). It is for the purpose of providing "responsibility for the review". I still believe that the suggestion will reduce careless reviewing. After all who in his/her mind wants to be associated with a poor publication as the responsible person, etc..?
@Phillip, good point in revealing the reviewers' comments on the originally submitted paper. Here at RG authors could easily accomplish this by adding appropriate datasets related to their uploaded papers. In paper-based journals it would be much more difficult to do.
I'm not so sure about the notion of 'poor submissions'. For a reviewer a paper might be poor because of incomprehensible use of English language, and for another one the same paper might be a potential valuable contribution.
BTW. In a related question researchers share their experiences and views on the quality of reviews, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_your_experiences_relating_the_quality_of_peer_reviews_for_your_papers
Not only the reviewer's, also editor's names should appear at the footnote of the article as these authenticate the publication as well as give due credit to hidden workers. This shall also improve quality of refereeing and editing.
That's a good point, @Rakesh. After all, the editors usually are the ones who make the final decision to publish the paper or not.
Given the case where you reveal the names of reviewers, no doubt, it will be a good move . But again the Most constructive comment may also offend the so called "Big Shot Authors"
Saumendu
Once the paper is published, nobody shall hold any grievance as due credit goes to all concerned and quality of evaluation shall become realistic and fair.
As a reviewer I most often begin with reviewing in awe for the depth and breadth the authors have put into their work, and have as a primary concern whether or not they are conveying their work in a manner that meets the quality of that effort. Hence, reviewing comments are meant as ways to improve the paper (if needed), not so much as a critical analysis of it (unless warranted). Another concern, and this is probably most peer reviewing is anonymous is whether the conclusions of finding (usually captured in the abstract) are as significant as the author(s) think they are. But another element that enters the fray is not so much the reviewer's opinion but the editor or editorial committee that decides if the topic and subject matter match the intended audience or not. Sometimes an author might feel rejection of the paper when in reality it is just an editorial calendar or reading audience judgement. Rarely do reviewers make those determinations.
I know what Brian means. It is frustrating at times not being able to communicate with the author directly. In some of the items I have reviewed I have found perspectives I am either unsure of or disagree with, but have passed a paper simply because I think we need to have a wide range of discussions on topics. In some cases I have offered an "alternate (unofficial) review" in which I will discuss my reservations with whomever wishes to respond, sometimes the editor will respond, sometimes they will pass it on to the author and we can discuss it further. Unless I find really egregious issues (i.e., over-interpreting of data, or worse, misinterpreting, or some glaringly missing variable or confound) I will still approve the paper. And some of you have remarked about agendas and, a little less spoken, lack of knowledge of the reviewer. Yes, unfortunately those happen. I have doctoral students, for instance, who've been frustrated with getting their papers published because of their novelty, or ground-breaking aspects make the reviewers nervous. It can be daunting to break into the weaknesses of conventional wisdom or step heavily on the toes of vested interests. So there are what we might call politics or an agenda in some publications. But hopefully the expanding universe of publications that are starting to embrace the novel or unconventional will open their doors to such papers if they are indeed printworthy. But I do respect Saumendu's wish to keep it anonymous, too. In those cases where discussion needs to happen, I think a mechanism where identities can be didacted could be employed through electronic media
Excellent points, Brian. Cultural aspects do weight heavily into this--just as inadvertently expressing findings in terms of what the data "show", "reveal", "indicate", "demonstrate", "suggest" etc.. To some, it is one half dozen or other, to others it is incremental to strength of the data. So it is with expressing or defining disorders relative to cultural or regional interpretation.
Hi the guys from Northcentral Uni. I could be wrong - but I think that we're going off at a tangent now!!
Yes Dean, I agree. We are somewhat off the subject. Nevertheless, the question has struck a nerve as noted by the contents of the answers. I firmly believe that the reviewer(s)' ID should be placed in the title page such that the quality of the review is transparent.
Well, the tangent is that reviewers are from different perspectives, cultures, and languages and percieve different meanings of what they review accordingly. This brings such matters as to whether transparency and communication are needed. I have a foot in both sides of the question here: the need for communication, yes; identities, probably not. I recall one publication for which I was a reviewer and had previously been the editor; some of those writing the articles were former colleagues or acquaintances. It made for an extremely awkward situation, inhibiting objectivity in favor of "will they be offended?", "can I be objective"? So, these considerations do enter the picture. If anything, I believe a bit more discussion is needed between reviewer and author, especially in articles that have been rejected or even before it is rejected. These are my thoughts on the matter.
@max - back on track now I believe. I review for over 30 journals - and one of the more recent ones has come up with an approach that I've not come across before (not that I'm suggesting it is unique). After all review comments and decisions by the reviewers to accept or reject - or something in-between - are returned, all comments are sent back to the reviewers again and, on the basis of what has been reported, the editor asks you to review your decision again. So far - I've always stuck with my original decision but, if all the others were saying accept (and I'm the only reject) - I would look very closely. Systems like the one I describe might help with your plight Max. If you were being 'sensitive' to fellow colleagues feelings (and more likely then to be on the 'overly-positive' side) - the other reviewers might cancel that out.
Excellent thought, Dean. I think some of my most time consuming reviews were for papers where there was no avenue to discuss anything. I could see the authors' perspective, but felt they were incomplete in their logic and assumed more from their study (significance or generalizability, for instance) than was really there. Just a few word changes might have saved the article--toning down interpretation, for instance. There is nothing wrong with admitting there was no significance when the question needed to be asked. Perhaps the next research study on the same topic, having that information in hand, will get to a more salient problem because of it.
Very attractive arguments. However, I would like also to see some opinions from the Southern Hemisphere as for the reviewers' cultural background and its impact on the review process. My personal experience is inclined to that fact that many reviewers whose identity is kept confidential (and belong to the North Hemishpere) use "Cliche'" arguments to simply block a paper (written by people from the southern Hemisphere) from being published .
Hussin - I'm very much based in the Southern Hemisphere - about as far south as you can get!! That said, of the 30 plus journals that I review for, most are European or US-based
I just realized you are at Massey in New Zealand, Dean, if I'm not mistaken. In Palmerston North I think? I did a guest lecture on Alzheimers Disease there some years ago, and my wife used to be the Charge OT at the hospital there. Lots of great researchers and practitioners have been there over the years. On another note I really don't think that reviewers look at their task as a blocking effort--so much of this is simply a labor of love. Its more to protect the integrity of the field. On a personal level I learn a great deal from doing it--these writers do an enormous amount of compilation and review of studies before they can ever conduct their own study or even find a problem needing answered. Just the theoretical frames are endless that what may appear to the writer as bias may actually be a flag that the study may not actually contribute to the given theory. Its a lot of work and much more appreciated than we can often express to those to whom we must remain anonymous.
Hi Max - always good to have 'personal' threads ' that also inform'. Yes - I'm in Palmerston North and have been so for the last 8-years after leaving the UK. Massey is a good university, I agree, but particularly since the 'new' VC arrived about 5-years ago. Not sure when you were here - but the university has very good future strategy in place.
I agree with your sentiments. Most reviewers do it because 'they want to' and there is nothing in it for them other than 'to assist, nurture etc'. From my experience, most feedback to authors is valid but, at the same time, is more likely to lean towards the negative than the positive - and that's not a bad thing for developing good copy in my mind. I do, however, occasionally come across 'blockers'; those that are either inexperienced or 'angry' and offer destructive, rather than constructive, feedback. I wonder if part of the editorial responsibility is not to filter those 'blockers' out. On the other hand, authors have to work out when feedback is deconstructive for the sake of it - and when it is needed
Not necessarily on the published page but certainly on the site as a link to review history/ pre publication history
Biomed central journals are doing this since i have first published my paper in 2009
J Med Case Reports. 2011; 5: 332. Published online 2011 July 29. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-5-332
Hi Dean
I appreciate your feedback, it seems I have encountered many "Blockers"!
By the way, Journals from Australia and New Zealand are not within the issue I raised, it is more North American where the problems reside!
Best to all, I love your comments as well as those raised by Max. If I encounter reviewers of your caliber I would not mind the constructive reviews even if negative. Your mind set is to help and not to destroy.
Congrats.
Hussin - nice sentiments and many thanks. Actually, I rarely publish in Australasian journals - but I do tend to lean towards European-based journals. There are still 'blockers' - but I find that I encounter them less frequently.
Yes Dean.
I did encounter a tough reviewer, but surprisingly he provided me with a major corrected manuscript but with suggestions. I appreciated that and later was published.
Hussin - then job well done - by both the reviewer and yourself in the end. Sometimes you have to take an initial step-back from reviewers comments (particularly when they seem harsh), take a pause (suck it up) and come back to it with more 'objective' eyes a little later on. Better still, if you really disagree with reviewers comments, get your colleagues to do a 'mini-review' themselves. I've done this before and, guess what, mostly my colleagues suggest that the reviewers are correct - albeit they could have used more constructive language.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing