From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon May 5 02:21:00 2014 From: "Mehboob Alam mehboob.cu]*[gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! Message-Id: <-50023-140505015847-26192-+7jhMvvcOLgVhlXMWI01kQ.:.server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Mehboob Alam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:28:40 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Mehboob Alam [mehboob.cu~!~gmail.com] --001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello everyone, I'm following the posts related to this issue, right from the beginning. I read all the posts. I just want to say that my Boss also boosted me to do a work and write a paper by myself (without my Boss's name). Like Tarzan P. my paper was also rejected by two of the journals (not at the editorial stage but it was sent for review and reviewers rejected it). Then I submitted it to a third journal (after answering the previous reviewer's comments) of comparatively less impact factor and booommmm...it was accepted after a sort of major revision. So, the conclusion is that it may happen that without a big name the paper may be rejected (without proper justification) but there are also good reviewers who don't search any big name before evaluating a manuscript. I think rejection of a manuscript has its own benefits (including improvement). Although nothing bad has happened with me but I support the double-blind process. With best regards, Md. Mehboob Alam Senior Research Fellow - CSIR-INDIA Department of Chemistry, University of Calcutta Kolkata - 700 009, India On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Robert Molt r.molt.chemical.physics{=} gmail.com wrote: > Well said, "Tarzan P." I understand arguments as to why keeping > reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why the > reviewers should see the author's name. Has an argument yet been given? > > Prestige matters. Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having no > names on either side or names on both. > > Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.r.molt.chemical.physics%x%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 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com wrote: > > Dear All... > After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by lots of > people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and some from > whom I learn a lot reading their papers .. > Want to share a personal experience ..: > My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single author paper > to boost my job prospectus... I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by editor > himself with out going for a review ... Journal B.. zoop again rejected by > editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added my boss name .. journal > C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never thought it will get through > ..) .. done... went for a review and got accepted after minor revisions as > suggested by two reviewers ... > This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with me also .. > two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what big deal .. > I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply > "But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, both in removing > some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps making > them (us) feel more confident about the fairness of the system." > > It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??" > A few things: > 1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will take a > long time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ... > As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and am not > interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned if someone > signs it or not .... I would like to know if some one thinks otherwise .. > why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ?? > 2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any competent reviewer gets to > know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why tell him aprior > ..? > 3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it > MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name .. some of > you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give the benefit of > doubt to the diligent author ... > After all this .. > To have an close to unbiased process... > what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of > nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going to bring > more fairness to the system .... > > cheers !!! > > > On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com ccl.net> wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com] > " Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent." > > Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the > defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have commented herein. > > I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews. I > applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so. > > Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and > integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions. To do > otherwise smacks of pusillanimity. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net [ > mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com > {:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM > To: Kress, Jim > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a past > editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous > review is useful. > Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is > hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often). > It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that). > But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by > the author? > You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not all > fair, and even from sects (yes indeed). > Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent. > If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only > for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific > community: would reviewers still accept to help? > I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more > advantages than drawbacks. > About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is > discussed on the websites cited in a previous post. > Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, > eventually as an author choice. > May be that should be experienced. > > All my best, > > Michel Petitjean > MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7, > 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. > Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 > E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred), > michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr > http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html > > 2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com ccl.net>: > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=-=gmail.com] Why should the > > names of the reviewers be confidential? It is only reasonable, given > > the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays > > "Science" that the authors of an article be allowed to see who > > reviewed their work. As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on > > the topic of "Global Warming", reviewers who object to your political > > views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny > > publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you > and/or your politics. > > > > Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is > > not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work. > > > > Jim Kress > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net > > [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com(-)ccl.net] > On Behalf Of > > tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM > > To: Kress, Jim > > Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!! > > > > > > Sent to CCL by: "tarzan p" [tarzan11_11=-=yahoo.com] Dear All........ > > It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to > > journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are > confidential. Justified. > > But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and > > his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!! > > Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...?? > > Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of > > non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...? > > > > I hope to get some views..... > > with best wishes and happy computing > > ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/ > > chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp:// > www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt > > > the strange characters on the top line to the !=! sign. You can also > > E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY!=!ccl.net or use:> > E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST!=!ccl.net or use> > > > > > --001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello everyone,

I'm following the p= osts related to this issue, right from the beginning. I read all the posts.= I just want to say that my Boss also boosted me to do a work and write a p= aper by myself (without my Boss's name). Like Tarzan P. my paper was al= so rejected by two of the journals (not at the editorial stage but it was s= ent for review and reviewers rejected it). Then I submitted it to a third j= ournal (after answering the previous reviewer's comments) of comparativ= ely less impact factor and booommmm...it was accepted after a sort of major= revision. So, the conclusion is that it may happen that without a big name= the paper may be rejected (without proper justification) but =A0there are = also good reviewers who don't search any big name before evaluating a m= anuscript. I think rejection of a manuscript has its own benefits (includin= g improvement). Although nothing bad has happened with me but I support the= double-blind process.

With best regards,
Md. Mehboob Alam
Senior Research Fellow - CSIR-INDIA<= /div>
Department of Chemistry,
University of Calcutta
Kolkata - 700 009, India


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Robert M= olt r.molt.chemical.physics{=3D}gmail.com = <owner-chemistry**ccl.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Well said, "Tarzan P."=A0 I understand arguments as to why keeping reviewers anonymous is fine, but I see no justification for why the reviewers should see the author's name.=A0 Has an argument yet been given?

Prestige matters.=A0 Meritocracy would seemingly be served by having no names on either side or names on both.
Dr. Robert Molt Jr., Ph.D.
r.molt.chemical.physics%x%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 8:53 AM, tarzan p tarzan11_11#yahoo.com wrote:
Dear All...
After having initiated the dialogue .. and reading the replies by lots of people and couple who are themselves editors and reviewers and some from whom I learn a lot reading their papers ..
Want to share a personal experience ..:
My benevolent boss asked me to go ahead and submit a single author paper to boost my job prospectus...=A0 I submitted .. zoop.. rejected by editor himself=A0 with out going for a review ... Journal B.. zoop again rejected by editor himself ... Not withstanding this .. I added my boss name .. journal C ( I pushed it to a journal .. which I never thought it will get through ..) .. done... went for a review and got accepted after minor revisions as suggested by two reviewers ...
This many people will write off .. saying that this happed with me also .. two journals reject and a third might accept ..so what big deal ..
I want to quote Mikael Johansson reply
"But for younger researchers, it could be beneficial, bo= th in removing some of the possible bias against their work, as well as in perhaps making them (us) feel more confident about the=A0 fairness of the system."

It did make me feel .. "Is the reviewing process being fair or not ...??"
A few things:
1. Only a handful of reviewers sign their names and I think it will take a long time for that to happen unless it becomes mandatory ...
As an author .. I am interested in constructive criticism .. and am not interested to know who reviewed it .. and I am least concerned if someone signs it or not=A0 .... I would like to know if some one thinks otherwise .. why does he want to know who reviewed his paper .. ??
2. Many said "double blind is a joke" as any compete= nt reviewer gets to know whose paper is it .. .... OK let him guess ..but why tell him aprior ..?
3. It makes NO good/bad to the reviewer to know the author ... but it MIGHT effect the author, if the reviewer gets to know his name=A0 .. some of you might think I am not right .. but still ...Why not give the benefit of doubt to the diligent author ...
After all this ..
To have an close to unbiased process...
what is the loss/problem for the editors to adopt a policy of nondisclosure of the author's name to the reviewer if it is going to bring more fairness to the system ....

cheers !!!


On Sunday, 4 May 2014, 4:30, Jim Kress jimkress35%gmail.com <owner-chemistry!=3D!ccl.net> wrote:

Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[A]gmail.com]
" Remember that reviewers are volunteers and benevolent."

Benevolence is an assumption that is not consistent with a few of the defenders of the "anonymous review" system that have comme= nted herein.=A0

I salute the people who have responded that they sign their reviews.=A0 I applaud their personal and intellectual integrity in doing so.

Those who undertake to guard the portals of Scientific soundness and integrity should be willing to place their name on their actions.=A0 To do otherwise smacks of pusillanimity.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com{:}ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.c= om{:}ccl.net] On Behalf Of Michel Petitjean petitjean.chiral::gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:06 PM
To: Kress, Jim
Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!


Sent to CCL by: Michel Petitjean [petitjean.chiral() gmail.com] As a past editor-in-chief of two journals, please let me add a reason why anonymous review is useful.
Often, authors are unhappy with reviews, and sometimes the editor is hassled by unhappy authors (fortunately, not often).
It is part of the job of the editor to manage such situations (I did that).
But imagine what could happen when a non anonymous reviewer is hassled by the author?
You know, editors receive contributions from very diverse authors, not all fair, and even from sects (yes indeed).
Remember that reviewers are volounteers and benevolent.
If they should face to such authors, imagine the consequences, not only for the reviewers themselves, but for all the scientific
community: would reviewers still accept to help? I agree that anonymous review can be criticized, but until now it has more advantages than drawbacks.
About the double blind review, most time it is not useful, and this is discussed on the websites cited in a previous post.
Nevertheless, possibly it could make sense for some maths journals, eventually as an author choice.
May be that should be experienced.

All my best,

Michel Petitjean
MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7,
35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
E-mail: petitjean.chiral * gmail.com (preferred),
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 michel.petitjean * univ-paris-diderot.fr http://peti= tjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html

2014-05-02 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Kress jimkress35]![gmail.com <owner-chemistry * ccl.ne= t>:

>
> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35=3D-=3Dgmail.com] Why should the
> names of the reviewers be confidential?=A0 It is only reasonable, given
> the level of personal and professional antipathy present in todays
> "Science" that the authors of an art= icle be allowed to see who
> reviewed their work.=A0 As we have seen exposed in the media, e.g. on
> the topic of "Global Warming", revie= wers who object to your political
> views will ignore the scientific aspects of your work and deny
> publication, just on the basis of their personal animosity toward you and/or your politics.
>
> Authors should be allowed to ensure this type of nonscientific bias is
> not allowed to interfere with the publication of their scientific work.
>
> Jim Kress
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D=3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net
> [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35=3D= =3Dgmail.com(-)ccl.net] On Behalf Of
> tarzan p tarzan11_11..yahoo.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:19 PM
> To: Kress, Jim
> Subject: CCL: Name of authors during review ...!!!
>
>
> Sent to CCL by: "tarzan=A0 p" [tarzan11_11=3D-=3Dyahoo.com] Dear All........
> It is often(or probably always ...) that a submitted article to
> journal goes for a peer review. Of course the reviewers are confidential. Justified.
> But why is that the reviewers get to know the names of the authors and
> his affiliation during the review process ..? Unfair ...!!!
> Will it not put a sort of bias into the reviewers head ...??
> Will it be not possible for the journal editors to adopt a policy of
> non-disclosure of the authors till the work is accepted...?
>
> I hope to get some views.....
> with best wishes and happy computing
> ....http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bi= n/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/
> chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.n= et/spammers.txthttp://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.cc= l.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt


the strange characters on the top line to the !=3D! sign. You can also

E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTR= Y!=3D!ccl.net or use:
=A0 =A0 =A0 http= ://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST!=3D!ccl.net or use
=A0 =A0 =A0 http= ://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message


=A0 =A0 =A0 http://= www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://w= ww.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml

=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ccl.net/s= pammers.txt

RTFI: http:/= /www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/






--001a11c361dcbe366404f8a0d23b--