Time for Revelation: Unmasking the Anonymity of Blind Reviewers
- 260 Downloads
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...
KeywordsReview Process Open Review Blind Review Professional Credibility Peer Review System
- 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.
- McCook, A. (2006). Is peer review broken? The Scientist, 20(2), 26–31.Google Scholar
- Nature. (2006). Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. doi: 10.1038/nature05535.