If you haven’t seen any of the discussions about ‘double-blind’ peer review then you’re probably living under a rock (and not reading this, anyway).
I happen to disagree with the philosophy that says that the methods of doing research should be published according to those same methods — not least because actually, most of the stuff I do is not double- (or even single-) blinded.
My own take on the matter is that refereeing should be totally nonymous: in other words, the journals should tell the authors to whom they are sending the article for review, and the reviewer’s names be published along with the paper.
That is complete transparency, and would possibly make reviewers take responsibility for their comments.
(‘Pier review’. Yes, Henry; intentional. The end of a long walk)
You make a good point. However, scientists (in my opinion) are very self-conscious. It seems that if one’s paper gets rejected, it’s taken as a personal attack against one’s intelligence. Knowing the names of those responsible for rejecting a paper may make things worse.
Richard,
I have not followed the Peer Review debate to the extent that I should before expressing myself here. Therefore, I will take the risk of saying something that may have been said already.
Along with thinking that you have a well taken point, I wonder what would happen when referees’ names will appear on published papers. Will referees start asking for credit? If one acts as a referee of a successful paper, will he/she want to blow his/horn for it? Things could get out of control. Impact factor for referees…mmm…scary.
Good point Massimo. I would like to think that people would have sufficient modesty to say that no, recognizing brilliance is not the same as brilliance, and anyone would have done the same.
“You may say I’m a dreamer” and you might well be right.
@Nuruddeen. I don’t know, actually. In some fields the reviewers are known anyway (my previous boss and myself used to play ‘guess the reviewer’); and I think that unwarranted trashing of papers is more of a problem than laissez-faire, so it would probably work to our favour.
In a review of piers, I’d say that Cromer pier was the nicest, naturally, as it is the only pier in the UK that still has a regular End Of Pier Show (apart from my own blog, that is, which is, naturally, the very best blog of that name in the blogosphere). But turning from piers to peers, I’m happy with the current Nature system, which is that referees are anonymous unless they elect to be otherwise… which happens more often than you’d think, especially in the more genetlemanly and less frenetic parts of science, such as palaeontology, where there is not so much ‘news’ as ‘olds’.
Really? I didn’t know that.
I must admit, palæontology does conjure up images of somewhat greying, distinguished-looking gentlemen scientists in jackets and cravats.
One of them is probably smoking a pipe.
As a manuscript editor for many years, I can tell you that very many authors behave in a disgraceful fashion if they know who their referees are (referees can elect to identify themselves if they wish, and some do). I have seen all kinds of lobbying, aggression, etc– authors contact the referees outside the jouranl process and “grind them down”. For a journal like Nature, science is the loser, because a very typical pattern for a Nature paper after a round of review is “interesting idea, results don’t support it yet”. If you say this as a reviewer, and then get lots of lobbying and whining, you will get pretty fed up — many reviewers just throw up their hands and say “Oh, OK then, publish” even though they know the paper isn’t up to scratch.
Another problem with open peer review is that it is hard to be critical of a paper if you are relatively unestablished and the author is very senior — someone who might be in a position to block your next grant or job application, or fail to invite you to speak at a conference.
Trust the editors, I say — we make sure the process is fair — we are advocates for the science, not swayed by variants of human behaviour exhibited by authors and reviewers.
As a novice, and in response to Clarke’s comment, I’d say true “peer review” is achieved when scientific content, and not name or fame, are what is at stake. Lobbying and aggression are inevitable when trying achieve fame (ie publish in prestige journals). After all, every scientist believes that their research has significant relevance and contributes to existing body of knowledge.
I think that in order for content to be given a ‘fair trail’, the authors’ names should also be kept anonymous. That way, as a reviewer, you will not be weighted down by either being favorable to the author or hoping for altruism (referees electing to identify themselves).
I am not a novice, I am an editor who has witnessed author and reviewer behaviour for many years. We at the Nature journals believe our peer-review system is fair: many thoughtful discussions and articles on various aspects this topic are available at the Nature Network Ask The Editor forum and on the Peer to Peer blog, as well as the peer-review section of our author and reviewers’ website. (Links and URLs provided in the Ask the Editor NN group.)
Some people believe anonymous (double blind) peer review is fairer (though with discussions elsewhere about Jane, the computer-matching software, it is unlikely that this would be practically possible to achieve), others believe open peer review is fairer. But the great majority of scientists (surveys, etc) feel that the present system is working just fine with its many checks and balances.
Maxine, I don’t really think Salim was calling you a novice.
Do the names get revealed during the review process? I’d have thought that when the final decision had been made would be the best bet.
And yes, nonymous [sic] peer review (at least, as I say, post-final decision) does depend on everyone acting honorably and in the interests of science, not their own. I shall now go away and get quite depressed at human nature.
Again.
I wonder – does Lord May (for example) still referee papers? That would be proper peer review.
Ha ha! Yes, indeedy.
‘Peer’ is a word that caused the young RPG no end of puzzlement.