I find it absurd how many people are
claiming how "obvious" it is to identify reviewers/authors of
papers. Empirically, this is not true. The people claiming how
obvious this is apparently have forgotten what it is like to be a
newer scientist in the field, and not have decades of experience
to have met "everyone" and know the writing styles of "everyone"
while they are just a graduate student writing papers.
Perhaps I am just the village idiot, but I've not been able to
identify the reviewers of my 7 papers.
Regardless, the "obviousness" of identities does not have any
logical bearing on the question proposed: why show the names of
paper's authors? If the anonymity of the reviewers is precious
(reasonable), why is the anonymity of the submitters any less
precious?
Of course I take any paper written by Dr. Bartlett or Dr. Cramer
more seriously...they are great scientists. Of course I will be
biased in their favor, whereas the exact same publication from
some loser named Robert Molt would require a greater hurdle.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.molt.chemical.physics{}gmail.com
Nigel Richards Research Group
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
LD 326
402 N. Blackford St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
On 5/4/14 1:14 PM, Jack Miller jmiller * brocku.ca wrote:
I am a retired chemist and VP Research, still tying up loose
end of 40+ years of lab results. My wife is retired dramatic
arts Prof, Some of her papers too over a year to get the reviews
back, which is also the case is disciplines such as Math and
Computer Science.
My wife used to get manuscripts to review with the author's
name suppressed - it being a relatively small field, and in
almost all cases she could identify the author, and for reviews
of her own papers, books and grant applications she was almost
always sure who the anonymous referees were.
In chemistry I could very often identify the referees for my
nearly 200 papers. If the authors were anonymous they would
still be identifiable by the references or the instrumentation
used or as one of my mentors used say he could identify the
referee who was still making the same grammar mistakes made in
their thesis.
What we have works - don't reinvent the wheel.
Prof. Jack Miller
Special Advisor on Buildings & Space,
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
Brock University.
Sent from my iPad
I vote for the "triple-blind"
review: Nobody knows the reviewers, the authors, or the
editors!
On 5/3/2014 3:11 PM, Marcel Swart marcel.swart*o*icrea.cat
wrote:
I just wanted to add that highly high-profile journals like
Angewandte,
Nature Chemistry, have Editors that are *not* active in
research,
but I would doubt seriously that this would make them
incompetent.
Like Michel said, two months is nothing, it is not
unusual to have a
period of between 2 months and one year between first
submission
and final acceptance. It reminds me of an Editorial
I’ve recently read,
about how to write a paper and how to deal with the
reviewing process.
Good luck with the paper!
Marcel
Just
be warned that sending your manuscript to
ChemPhysChem could result
in a huge delay in
dissemination of your scientific results - in my
case two
months. Then again, the
editor of ChemPhysChem does not appear to be
active in research at
all, something which is completely unheard of for a
high-
profile journal.
----------
Demetra
Dimetrodon
===================================
Prof. Dr. Marcel Swart
ICREA Research Professor at
Institut de Química Computacional i Catàlisi
Universitat de Girona
Facultat de Ciències
Campus Montilivi
17071 Girona
Catalunya (Spain)
tel
+34-972-418861
fax
+34-972-418356
e-mail
marcel.swart---icrea.cat
marcel.swart---udg.edu
web
http://www.marcelswart.eu
vCard
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..........Sebastian Kozuch...........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
......University of North Texas......
..........Denton, Texas, USA.........
........ seb.kozuch ~~ gmail.com .......
http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/kozuch.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx