Identity of a supposed anonymous referee revealed through “Description” of the reportAre reviewers supposed to know each others' identity, after the reviewing process is finished?Is it appropriate as a referee to contact an author after the editor rejected the manuscript?How to acknowledge contributions of anonymous referee in new paper?Research assistant wishes to remain anonymous, what to write in the acknowledgement?Slightly revised version of submitted paper two days afterwards: will the editor be annoyed?Is it normal that journals strongly suggest a professional English editing service?When peer reviewers are public/open, are they less likely to be critical of a manuscript?Who to contact when handling editor is anonymous and manuscript is delayed?How to force a journal to address an associate editor's scientific misconduct?Mistake in uploaded file type after revision
How to make the table in the figure in LaTeX?
Thesis' "Future Work" section – is it acceptable to omit personal involvement in a mentioned project?
Was this a power play by Daenerys?
The lexical root of the past tense forms differs from the lexical root of the infinitive form
Can you book a one-way ticket to the UK on a visa?
Help decide course of action for rotting windows
Looking for a simple way to manipulate one column of a matrix
What is the significance of 4200 BCE in context of farming replacing foraging in Europe?
Is there enough time to Planar Bind a creature conjured by a one hour duration spell?
What does i386 mean on macOS Mojave?
How do I tell my supervisor that he is choosing poor replacements for me while I am on maternity leave?
Two researchers want to work on the same extension to my paper. Who to help?
International Code of Ethics for order of co-authors in research papers
What are the ramifications of setting ARITHABORT ON for all connections in SQL Server?
Ubuntu won't let me edit or delete .vimrc file
Are there variations of the regular runtimes of the Big-O-Notation?
Exception propagation: When to catch exceptions?
Understanding basic photoresistor circuit
Remove everything except csv file Bash Script
How could we transfer large amounts of energy sourced in space to Earth?
histogram using edges
Why does "decimal.TryParse()" always return 0 for the input string "-1" in the below code?
Why use steam instead of just hot air?
Adding slope values to attribute table (QGIS 3)
Identity of a supposed anonymous referee revealed through “Description” of the report
Are reviewers supposed to know each others' identity, after the reviewing process is finished?Is it appropriate as a referee to contact an author after the editor rejected the manuscript?How to acknowledge contributions of anonymous referee in new paper?Research assistant wishes to remain anonymous, what to write in the acknowledgement?Slightly revised version of submitted paper two days afterwards: will the editor be annoyed?Is it normal that journals strongly suggest a professional English editing service?When peer reviewers are public/open, are they less likely to be critical of a manuscript?Who to contact when handling editor is anonymous and manuscript is delayed?How to force a journal to address an associate editor's scientific misconduct?Mistake in uploaded file type after revision
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,69321536
2,69321536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
10613
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user108493 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
11
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
53
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
2 days ago
1
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
2 days ago
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
user108493 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f130203%2fidentity-of-a-supposed-anonymous-referee-revealed-through-description-of-the-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
11
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
53
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
11
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
53
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
edited May 7 at 15:20
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
926110
926110
11
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
53
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
11
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
53
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
11
11
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
53
53
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
2 days ago
1
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
2 days ago
add a comment |
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
2 days ago
1
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
2 days ago
add a comment |
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.3k84487
21.3k84487
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
2 days ago
1
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
2 days ago
add a comment |
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
2 days ago
1
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
2 days ago
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
2 days ago
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
2 days ago
1
1
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
2 days ago
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
2 days ago
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,197518
2,197518
add a comment |
add a comment |
user108493 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user108493 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user108493 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user108493 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f130203%2fidentity-of-a-supposed-anonymous-referee-revealed-through-description-of-the-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
