Comment to DOI:10.1029/2003EO260005
Comments on “Anonymous reviews”
Article first published online: 19 DEC 2012
©2003. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 84, Issue 39, pages 396–n/a, 30 September 2003
How to Cite
2003), Comments on “Anonymous reviews”, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(39), 396–, doi:10.1029/2003EO390009.(
- Issue published online: 19 DEC 2012
- Article first published online: 19 DEC 2012
- Cited By
I would like to add the triple perspective of a now-retired editor (GRL, 1993–19997), a reviewer and author to the ongoing debate in Eos about anonymous versus signed reviews.
As an editor, I did not keep precise statistics, but my recollection would be that a little under (perhaps 40%) of the more than 3000 reviews I handled were signed. While some sort of "trend" expectedly existed between glowing reviews and signed ones, the correlation would probably not have passed a statistical test. By and large, my reviewers, whether or not they waived anonymity, were a professional and responsible pool, and the kind of personal and potentially unethical antagonisms described by Myrl Beck was the rare exception, rather than the rule, among anonymous reviews. The careful editor should be able to recognize this attitude in the tone and style of the review, and through comparison with other reviews of the same paper.