Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 313–315 | Cite as

Time for Revelation: Unmasking the Anonymity of Blind Reviewers

  • Govindasamy Agoramoorthy
Letter

The recent article titled “Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors” by David Resnik and Susan Elmore (2016) is interesting, informative and timely. Scientists have an ethical obligation to contribute their knowledge to the public since academic science is certainly communal. When journals receive papers, they are initially scanned by subject editors for suitability. Then external reviewers with expertise on the subject matter are invited to peer-review more meticulously. The word ‘peer’ in fact derives from Latin ‘par’, which means ‘equal’. So it implies that reviewers and authors are equal in their scholarly eminence when it comes to knowledge of the topic of a given manuscripts. Reviewers are normally invited to scrutinize papers to determine scientific quality, originality and validity—be it technical, theoretical or logical.

In 2006, Natureanalyzed the peer review system by interviewing several authors who have contributed...

Keywords

Review Process Open Review Blind Review Professional Credibility Peer Review System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anonymous, (2014). Retraction notice. Journal of Vibration and Control, 20(10), 1601–1604. doi: 10.1177/1077546314541924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dzeng, E. (2014). How academia and publishing are destroying scientific innovation: A conversation with Sydney Brenner. http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24.
  3. Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2003). Impartial judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1), 75–96. doi: 10.1023/A:1022670432373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McCook, A. (2006). Is peer review broken? The Scientist, 20(2), 26–31.Google Scholar
  5. Nature. (2006). Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. doi: 10.1038/nature05535.
  6. Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sengamala Thayaar Educational TrustMannargudiIndia
  2. 2.College of Pharmacy and Health CareTajen UniversityYanpu, PingtungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations