tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post114273018257051261..comments2024-03-14T23:52:09.893-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: Anonymous Peer Review Means Never Having to Say You're SorryThe Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-51051380850843740182010-03-11T08:02:19.766-08:002010-03-11T08:02:19.766-08:00Nah, you got it wrong. The reviewers are selected,...Nah, you got it wrong. The reviewers are selected, and vetted by the editor. In the end the editor is taking responsibility that what they say in a review is accurate. Also, the position one holds as a reviewer is tenuous- one can easily be dropped for weak reviews. You're also confounding the meanings of several different types of anonymity. "Anonymous" peer reviews are never type 1 anonymity, they are not even type 5. Not only do reviewers know the editor knows who they are, they know the general public can figure out after the article was published who gave the reviews that got it there-- reviewers names are published in sum on the second page of the journal, and if one wants to figuer it out, they simply follow keywords and publishing records to figure out which 2-3 people gave the reviews. It's a form of collaborative professional courtesy, not anonymity pre se. For the public though, we just say "anonymous" because the real deal would take a while to explain. Nice you're looking into it though. <br /><br />Craig Howard<br />Indiana University BloomigntonCraig Howardnoreply@blogger.com