Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Peer review and anonymity
Peer review and anonymity
09 March 2010
By Hannah Dee
Last week I got some reviews back on a journal paper. They were, frankly, great! The paper got accepted with major revisions, but the quality of the reviews was so good this was not a problem for us at all. Thoughtful, insightful, suggesting structural changes to the paper but in such a way that it was clear that the paper would be improved by their recommendations... I've received "better" reviews (i.e., ones in which the reviewers agreed with me!), but not better reviews in terms of content.
Strangely, two out of the three anonymous reviewers chose to sign their reviews, thus sacrificing their anonymity. I have never come across this before. Has anyone else? Why would a reviewer do this?
Matthew Salois10 March 2010 at 11:06 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Interesting experience, Hannah. I actually have not come across this before. But in a similar sort of experience, I did recently submited an article to a journal in which you pick your "favoured" reviewer, which also removes the anonymous aspect. I find both this, and your experience, a bit odd since the annonymity aspect I thought is essential to the blind review process. I wonder what incentive there could be in becoming known? Maybe in good reviews such as yours, the person hopes for a similarly kind review in return one day?
Tennie Videler10 March 2010 at 02:20 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi, I found out today that RIN (Research information Network) have launched a booklet on researchers and peer review, download at: http://www.rin.ac.uk/node/519. Haven't read it yet and doubt it answers this particular one!
Oliver Harris10 March 2010 at 07:46 PM
permalinkreport this comment
As I've mentioned on a previous thread - http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/156431-210661/The-problems-of-peer-review.html - it's fairly common in the humanities for referees to waive their anonymity. If they genuinely wish a paper well, and if their reservations are more a matter of subtle judgement than anything else (or if they have more factual information to back up their point of view than can be fitted into a short review), it means the author can enter into a genuine and beneficial dialogue with them.
Sarah Davies10 March 2010 at 10:04 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I'd definitely take this as a compliment, Hannah - I guess the people concerned liked your work so much that they wanted to continue in dialogue with you outside the anonymous peer review process...
Tennie Videler14 March 2010 at 09:45 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Branwyn's post on the digital researcher blog ties in with some of the discussion on peer review: http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/219961-223081/Mulling-it-over-.html