"Should The BMJ silence authors who were abused by a reviewer?" (2017)

For a truly open peer review I believe that all reviewers should be prepared to be public signatories and also be prepared to have their comments published alongside the document.

Even if the reviewer thinks the paper shouldn't be published this should be the case. If nothing else it might engender further interest and discussion if the topic.

It shows what a miserable state of affairs this business is in if a reviewer has to attack the author rather than argue the subject and is let get away with it. A reviewer like that should be blacklisted.
 
Invisible Woman said:
For a truly open peer review I believe that all reviewers should be prepared to be public signatories and also be prepared to have their comments published alongside the document.

Even if the reviewer thinks the paper shouldn't be published this should be the case. If nothing else it might engender further interest and discussion if the topic.

It shows what a miserable state of affairs this business is in if a reviewer has to attack the author rather than argue the subject and is let get away with it. A reviewer like that should be blacklisted.
Click to expand...
Some journals now do have open review where reviewers' comments are given with the name attached.
However I'm not sure any journals share reviewer comments, if a paper is not published.
 
Tom Kindlon said:
Some journals now do have open review where reviewers' comments are given with the name attached.
However I'm not sure any journals share reviewer comments, if a paper is not published.
Click to expand...
I meant if the paper was published but one of the reviewers thought it shouldn't be.

If the paper itself isn't published then I'm not sure there would be much point & it would be even more unfair to the author I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom