muriana at aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M. Muriana) writes:
>and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** the
>journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the journal
>editor when a split decision is over-ruled). This would likely insure
>*better* reviews as well as give credit to those who perform such thankless
>tasks as journal reviews.
I like Dave's idea of having the author(s) being anonymous to the reviewer,
although he raises a good point that, based on one citing one's own work it
might be rather easy to determine who wrote what. In addition, those who
have been at it long enough may be able to discern a particular author's
style, etc. Nevertheless, is there any reason why author(s) *shouldn't*
remain anonymous to the reviewer?
I see the benefit (necessity?) of keeping reviewers anonymous, but couldn't
the reviewers be made known to the author upon acceptance of a paper, so
that they can be included in acknowledgments? This would take care of any
non-professional backlash toward the reviewers in the event of rejection and
would give credit for their contribution to the work, as suggested above.
One other point. Shouldn't the author have access to ALL written
correspondence between reviewer, associate editor and editor regarding a
paper? To those who may know, what sorts of things are communicated from an
associate editor to the editor that are blanked out on coppies of letters
forwarded to the autho Dowsn't the author have the right to know *all* of
the criteria for why a paper requires revision or was rejected?
Mark Kubiske < MEK104 at PSUVM.PSU.EDU >
School of Forest Resources
Penn State University
