Anonymous Review - Pros and Cons
Over time the pages of Eos have contained strong and diverse viewpoints on the journal review process. Much of the debate has centered on whether it should be mandatory or voluntary that the identity of the reviewer be known to the author of the article. This or other ways to change the review process are the subject of this Eos Discussion.
Items on this topic appeared in the following issues of Eos:
1 Jul 2003 | 29 Jul 2003 | 23 Sep 2003 | 30 Sep 2003 | 23 Dec 2003 | 30 Dec 2003 | 20 Apr 2004
January 24th, 2007 at 8:07 am
A minimum condition must be that the name of the associate editor who handles the manuscript must be known. This seems not to be the policy with JGR. Furthermore, reviewers who permit their name to be known should be mentioned in the acknowledgement if the authors finds that the review has helped in improving the manuscript - and not destroying it !
February 1st, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I recently encountered the antithesis of an anonymous review in JGR, and it made me wonder about AGU policy is in this area. In this particular paper, published in JGRA in 2005, the same individual was named as a co-author and as a reviewer. I might have taken this to be a typographical error, except that I personally have been offered the chance to review a paper that I co-authored at least once, and I know of at least one other scientist who has had the same offer. Is this a new AGU policy, or an attempt to make reviews less anonymous?
September 24th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Reply to Thomas E Moore
My feeling is that it was a mistake of the Editor…however, when this happens, the author should inform the Editor about this “conflict of interest”.