To be honest, the peer review process is usually hard and time-consuming. The reviewer(s) exerted big effort in reviewing the manuscript(s) for free of charge. They usually contribute to improve our articles as best as possible. Therefore, journals should consider the reviewer(s) effort by at least mentioning the name(s) and affiliation of the reviewer within the published articles. What your opinions about this matter ? and how author(s) can assess the grateful work done by the reviewers ?
There are two sides of the problem. The one is transparency, this corresponds to your point. The other is confidentiality, anonymity protects the reviewer, and is a warrant for objectivity. Pragmatically, an inbetween solution should be found. Sometimes authors are very thankful to reviewers, who made helpful and sensible comments to their first draft.
Hi Nawras,
it used to be a standard option with many journals that a reviewer could specify whether their name should be disclosed or not. Many (perhaps most) reviewers would typically choose to stay anonymous, despite the effort a review takes, and for which no credit is given, not even your name in this case. Point is that often a reviewer knows the author and vice versa (many research communities are small enough for people to know each other). In that being critical of anything in the paper, suggest a major revision or, even worse, recommend rejection, is not easily done when your name is disclosed to the author.
Many journals now have a policy of a double-blind review, where neither the author name is disclosed to the reviewer, nor the other way around – this is meant to ensure more impartiality. But as with many things, views and perspectives on this issue differ, and have been discussed for decades already. A peer-review process is fundamentally a human process, i.e. imperfect.
Best regards, Norman
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts