Signing reviews

[Ollie123]

Out of curiosity, when (if ever) do folks sign their names when reviewing manuscripts?

I've never done it before and only had it done to me once. However, I'm reviewing a manuscript by some folks I know quite well from conferences ("facebook friends" kind of well, not just someone I can pick out of a crowd). Its a good manuscript and I think I'm being critical but fair. I think it might take the sting out to know its coming from me and not mystery reviewer X, but the only folks I've had sign reviews were far more senior than I am.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Is the journal advertised as double blind, single blind, or neither? If it's advertised as blind reviewed, then definitely don't sign it. If not, I still wouldn't do it. I publish in a very, very niche area--which allows our work to be "seminal." so that's cool --and I'm pretty sure I know who a lot of our reviewers are for that reason. I still like that it's blind, though, because I think it keeps the focus on the science and not "omg, Dr. AwesomeCV said this so he must be right" or "eh, Dr.TwoPublications said this so we can just ignore it." I'm totally pro-double blind reviewing for articles because in cases where I've reviewed single-blind articles, I did definitely notice the names and affiliations attached. I reviewed a set of manuscripts for a very high IF journal some years ago that turned out to be written by really top tier people, and I honestly think I probably gave a more constructive thoughtful review because I didn't know that at the time.

 

[NeuroLady]

I agree, I wouldn't sign my name for the reasons listed above. If the journal does have a double blind review process they'll likely remove your signature for you but it would be nice to save them the trouble.

 

[Ollie123]

To clarify, the blinding is optional for this journal (i.e. you can remove identifying information; reviews default to blind, but there is a separate box to check if you want your name included with the review). Thought most journals worked this way, but perhaps more common in some subfields than others. My mentors said they rarely use it, but will occasionally do so when say, they appear to have somewhat of a conflict of interest (i.e. its a critique of their work, competing theory, etc.). This is a little more indirect than that, but I'm wondering where to draw the line. Also this may be the sort of thing my tenured multi-R01 graduate mentors can get away with, but I should still be taking advantage of anonymity

 

[MCParent]

I've always been of the opinion that reviews should be professional and courteous enough that you wouldn't care if the authors knew it was you. I use "imagine the review wasn't blinded and they know who you are" as a training tool for grad students who do reviews. But I can see how an early career professional might not want to risk infringing on some established person's fragile ego.

 

[deleted343839]

I think it might take the sting out to know its coming from me and not mystery reviewer X, but the only folks I've had sign reviews were far more senior than I am.

Consider the reverse possibility though... I wouldn't disclose my identity unless I had a better reason than that.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I've always been of the opinion that reviews should be professional and courteous enough that you wouldn't care if the authors knew it was you. I use "imagine the review wasn't blinded and they know who you are" as a training tool for grad students who do reviews. But I can see how an early career professional might not want to risk infringing on some established person's fragile ego.

Well, yes, but realistically, no one is going to love heavy criticism of their work. I believe that most R&Rs do generally improve thanks to being R&Rs, so I appreciate constructive criticism on a general level, but that doesn't mean critical reviews don't sting a tisch. I've rather not have my name associated with that sting when I can give them the same feedback without having to attach my name to it.