[Fwd: TTR reviewers and peer review part II.]

[John Shuey]

> > Mike Gochfeld wrote:
> >
> > >I think the playing field is shifting (gradually) to fewer anonymous
> > >reviews, which in the long run is likely to make the peer review process
> > >more constructive and less destructive.
>
> Another issue worth considering - I used to always sign my reviews - I thought
> the author(s) at least deserved to know who applauded or panned their hard
> work.  Now I think twice, because of the following  scenario that never
> occurred to me until it actually happened.

I reviewed (signed reviews) a series a really (and I mean really) bad papers
for several journals.  All were rejected for a variety of good reasons.  These
papers later showed up with my name included in the acknowledgments, thanking
me for my review of an earlier draft.  These papers still really suck, but now
my name has been appended to them, implying that I endorse both the science and
the conclusions.  A complete embarrassment to me and in my opinion completely
unethical behavior on the part of the authors.

I could write this off as an single disturbed senior author, except that it has
happened again recently with someone else.

So, I think twice about signing reviews of really bad papers now.

Could this be a strategy that people are using to avoid potentially critical
reviewers by implying that they have already read and provided input to a
paper????

John Shuey