Regarding the use the reviews one receives on their manuscript:
I can not speak to whether the reviews are "copyrighted" or not ( I am not a lawyer either) and maybe this is an oversimplification, but I feel the reviews should be treated the same way as any other piece by a known author. After all, it is written by someone (other than oneself) and should be written in quotes and properly cited as Anonymous and the date. Just because we don't know who wrote doesn't mean we can do what we want with it. We just need to know to wasn't written by you. Regarding the anonymity of the reviewers / reviewees: I feel the reviewee should be anonymous because of the reasons already mentioned by others (unfair treatment of well known authors, etc.). I also feel that the reviewer should be known because this "mask of anonymity" that may allow the reviewer to speak their mind should not be necessary. The reviewer should be confident enough with their criticisms that they should have no reason to hide their identity. If a reviewer is afraid to say something unless guaranteed anonymity, does it need to be said? or said in such a way? An honest (and useful) reviewer should be able to give criticism to the reviewees "face." If not, maybe they shouldn't be a reviewer. Best Regards, Frank Marenghi Frank P. Marenghi Environmental Specialist III, Shellfish Program Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tawes Building, 580 Taylor Ave., B-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:12:57 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous? > To: [email protected] > > Surprisingly enough, those reviews are copyrighted by their authors, > automatically, even though the authors are anonymous. So, you can't > publish them. You could assign them to a class in the same way you > could assign other copyrighted materials, and you could write about > them (with quotations) under the same fair use guidelines that apply > to any other copyrighted material. > > At least, that's my understanding (I am not a lawyer). > > Hal Caswell > > > On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg wrote: > > > Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your > > own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who > > they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum? > > Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that > > individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a > > criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post > > these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of reviews > > people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find > > out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end > > up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)? > > > > --j > > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on > >> your > >> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who > >> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum? > >> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that > >> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a > >> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to > >> post > >> these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of > >> reviews > >> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to > >> find > >> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they > >> end > >> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)? > >> > >> --j > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Jonathan, > >>> > >>> As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was > >>> from a > >>> review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from > >>> the > >>> editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own, > >>> confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the > >>> reviews > >>> should remain unpublished in any form. > >>> > >>> CAB > >>> ******************************************** > >>> Chris Brown > >>> Associate Professor > >>> Dept. of Biology, Box 5063 > >>> Tennessee Tech University > >>> Cookeville, TN 38505 > >>> email: [email protected] > >>> website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg > >>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous? > >>> > >>> Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I > >>> know > >>> REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to be > >>> anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum? > >>> > >>> --j > >>> > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Hal Caswell > Senior Scientist > Biology Department > Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution > Woods Hole MA 02543 > 508-289-2751 > [email protected] _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
