peer review part IV
gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu
Thu Oct 5 11:11:10 EDT 2000
This is definitely more fun than working. John describes some real
>>>John Shuey wrote: "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."<<<
This could certainly happen. If the paper as finally published was
revised and incorporated at least some of John's suggestions, then the
acknowledgement really isn't dishonest-----embarrassing yes.
On the other hand:
I don't have the data, but I know that of the papers that I have put a
lot of time into "constructive" criticism and signed the reviews, the
vast majority have NOT included me in the acknowledgements, even if I
gave them some really "good stuff". I was mildly disappointed, but there
isn't any policy regarding acknowledging referees. Some papers thank
"two anonymous referees", but that's not very informative.
On the other hand I once had the author of a MS a critiqued, invite me
to be a co-author on the revision, expanding on my review.
>>>So, I think twice about signing reviews of really bad papers now.<<<
Well I suppose that signing the positive, neutral and moderately
negative reviews and not signing the really derogatory reviews is a
viable strategy. If that prevailed, then I could know that if I get an
unsigned review, it must be really bad.
>>>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????<<<<
Absolutely. That is a real strategy. In fact, I think I once saw it in
some tongue in cheek advice to graduate students. Disarm your critics by
Indeed,now that I think of it, I remember sending a manuscript to a
person who I thought was likely to be a reviewer, for their advice prior
to submission, knowing that it was unlikely that the editor would send
it back to them after submission. In fact, I think that someone on my
committee recommended that (was it because the person was an authority
or was it because they were known to be hostile reviewers??)
More information about the Leps-l