I agree with Marc. Another problem seems to be that reviewers accept mss, to review, that they are not qualified to review, thus contributing to the "impolite, unsubstantiated criticism". Double-blind, or complete transparency might solve some problems. Or signing reviews, as suggested by Kevin & Marc. Perhaps I will start signing.
cheers - randy ========================================= RK Bangert ========================================= On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:44 AM, Marc Kochzius wrote: > Dear All, > > I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review. That's > what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals that insist > that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is that some > colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not adequate (e.g. > impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in this context are the > editors. I think it is their responsibility to check if a review is adequate. > However, my experience is rather that most editors just pass the review to me > and I just wonder what kind of reviews I receive. In many cases there is > absolutely no quality control regarding the reviews. From many journals I > also never get a feedback about my review, nor do I receive the reports of > the other reviewers. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate if my review > was in concordance with the other reviewers. > > Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and > reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as possible. > Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all. > > Cheers, > > Marc > > Kevin Murray wrote: >> Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed. >> Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named. >> >> Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!! >> >> Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then >> posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not >> post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email. >> >> KLM >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> >> >>
