Should reviews be anonymous?
Probably ever since peer review started, authors have complained about it. If the process were started today, would it take on the same form? Probably not, but what form would it take? Would reviewers continue to be anonymous?
As my career has developed, a greater percentage of my reviews over time have been nonanonymous, but not all. Beck (2003, “Anonymous reviews: Self-serving, counterproductive, and unacceptable,” Eos, 84 (26), p. 249) imagines four conditions that might require anonymity, but finds none valid.
1. You need to say something negative about a manuscript written by somebody in power over you. If you cannot do so openly, you should of course refuse the review. Perhaps you should also look for another job….
2. You have just deep-sixed a paper by a bitter scientific rival and hope to get away with it. Again, obviously, you should have declined the review. A more courageous and useful alternative would be to do the review, suppressing your dislike of the conclusions, then argue politely for a different interpretation. But this is hard, and would take more time.
3. You have agreed to do a review, then find you have no time, or are uninterested in the topic. One way out is to do a slap-dash, superficial, inadequate job, then remain anonymous to protect your reputation. Far better to apologize to the editor and send it back.
4. A friend or respected colleague has submitted a paper that, in your judgement, is wrong and should be rejected. Clearly, if your relationship with the author is such that a friendship would be ended by a negative review, you should not be doing the review. However, having agreed to do it, the easy way out is to lambast the paper, then duck from sight. A far better course of action would be to return the paper to the editor unreviewed, then contact the author and explain your problems with his/her ideas.
So, what is your opinion of anonymous peer review? Why do you submit reviews anonymously?
Image from http://globesmeek.files.wordpress.com
I not only sign reviews, but also request the editor pass along my contact information to the author(s) with the offer to discuss any aspect of the review or the paper in general. I am fortunate my position with NOAA/NWS is not incumbent on generating grants, nor did I have to navigate the tenure process. I generally concur with Beck’s observations, and would recuse myself at the outset in Condition 4, thereby avoiding any negative outcome. In fact, Condition 4 is an opportunity close friends and I use to review each other’s papers before submission to a journal, following the axiom: “better for a thorough review to be internal than external.”
I do not, nor ever will, know if signed reviews have a negative career impact for me. However, I have seen many first-time authors tremendously helped by dialogue with signed reviewers, and that dialogue is the single best opportunity for them to develop effective literature review, research, and writing skills.
I am shying away from the anonymous part of the review process. The whole point of the review is to communicate clearly with the reader and the reviewers are a check on that communication. Being honest and critical should be the norm without any backlash. If you fail to communicate your science, or your science is weak it should be expressed in the reviews. Knowing who the reviewers are should not matter to the authors if they have done their best work. What the identities should signify is the varying audience and their interpretations.
I don’t see the point of being anonymous as a reviewer. I would much rather the process be open with reviews published along with the paper. This might eliminate some poor reviews and provide perspective for younger writers.
I’m a young scientist (35) and have done only one anonymous review in 12 years, the rest (dozens and dozens) all being non-anonymous.
I agreed to review a paper by a colleague but part way through realized I wasn’t qualified to judge the material so I asked another colleague to look at it. That second person replied that it deserved a lambasting over-the-top negative review and no-question it should be rejected. Personally, I didn’t know the technical details to back up either position.
In retrospect I was making a mistake in not returning the manuscript to the editor when I realized I wasn’t able to make the review, instead of asking someone else to help me. In all, it was going to be embarrassing to submit a review I couldn’t defend and had relationships with both parties to maintain.
I came clean to the editor and detailed everything that happened, forwarding the whole email thread. In the end the journal was understanding and appreciative of the input, but I asked to be left out of the eventual decision.
I think probably the only major downside of non-anonymous review is that I very rarely choose to reject a manuscript, instead opting for “accept with very major revisions”.
Anonymous reviews squander a golden opportunity for future collaboration! If someone is knowledgeable about my research area, provides constructive improvements to my manuscript, and offers great scientific insight that I can use to advance my career; then why shouldn’t I contact that person after publication and seek to work with them on a future project?
But if I don’t know their name – I can’t!
I found this interesting post about anonymous reviewing. I believe it can be a great addition to the current discussion: http://tinyurl.com/2g2fo6e