tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27601830.post115092870027986551..comments2023-07-08T07:33:24.470-07:00Comments on Hope for Pandora: Reviewing Peer Reviewthomas robeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10507272466209300062noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27601830.post-1151605633921826442006-06-29T11:27:00.000-07:002006-06-29T11:27:00.000-07:00Although it works well on the whole, there is cert...Although it works well on the whole, there is certainly room for improvement in the peer review process. It's enormously frustrating to have a paper rejected due to an ignorant (or worse, mean-spirited) review by some anonymous 'expert'.<BR/><BR/>Some open access journals use a different approach to peer review. I submitted a paper to one of BMC's journals. This particular journal leaves the reviewer's names on the review. And more, if the paper is published BMC also posts the whole pre-publication history: original manuscript, any revisions, and reviewer's comments. Quite an incentive to make sure your review is polite and accurate...<BR/><BR/>Of course, it also gets rid of the benefits of anonymity (protection from retribution?). <BR/><BR/>Maybe a middle ground. Reviews are generally anonymous, but each has a probability of having the reviewer's name included. Game theory could probably select the cut-off that would maximize civility/accuracy while minimizing the number of experts that refuse to review...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com