Timeline for When (if ever) disclose your identity as a reviewer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:28 | comment | added | Zeno Rogue | I once had been asked for a review by a somewhat predatory journal, and considered e-mailing the authors about this (since they probably reviewed the journal was good). But the review request e-mail claimed it was confidential, so I was afraid that doing this might breach some confidentiality law. | |
| Nov 29, 2017 at 18:27 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 30, 2017 at 7:10 | |||||
| Oct 12, 2017 at 18:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 13, 2017 at 8:37 | |||||
| May 13, 2017 at 20:27 | answer | added | Mikhail Borovoi | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 19, 2016 at 13:56 | answer | added | Gerald Edgar | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 31, 2012 at 4:30 | answer | added | Vidit Nanda | timeline score: 24 | |
| May 31, 2012 at 0:38 | answer | added | Karl Schwede | timeline score: 14 | |
| May 30, 2012 at 22:47 | comment | added | Andy Putman | I think it's fine to disclose your identity eventually; however, I don't think that it is ok to tell the author your identity before the journal has made a decision on the paper (unless, of course, the editor gives permission). Indeed, I could imagine it causing problems for the author at certain journals -- the editorial board might feel that it compromises your objectivity and thus be less likely to take your advice. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 22:20 | answer | added | Goldstern | timeline score: 37 | |
| May 30, 2012 at 19:54 | answer | added | daveh | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 30, 2012 at 19:24 | history | edited | Dirk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarification and extended question.
|
| May 30, 2012 at 0:44 | comment | added | JRN | I think this question is more appropriately asked at academia.stackexchange.com | |
| May 30, 2012 at 0:28 | answer | added | Igor Rivin | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 30, 2012 at 0:05 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | I think there is no "should" on this topic: It is a personal preference. I only review nonanonymously, which I find inclines me to care and to courtesy, whether the report is positive or negative. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 23:03 | answer | added | Chris Godsil | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 29, 2012 at 22:02 | comment | added | user11000 | @WillJagy: I think you are talking about Nick Katz. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 21:49 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | I once met somebody who thought was a referee for the FLT paper. He said he was working on it, and was quite perplexed when I showed him the issue of the Annals with the paper in it, that the library had just received a few days ago. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 21:18 | comment | added | Will Jagy | They made an episode of NOVA about FLT and Andrew Wiles. There was one referee per chapter. One of them says, on camera, that he did nothing that summer except go through line by line, emailing Wiles at stumbling blocks. Eventually there came a day when several contacts with Wiles did not result in a workable fix of a gap. I can't seem to remember the referee's name. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 21:09 | comment | added | BSteinhurst | I have heard of a reviewer doing this to cut out the editor as a middle-person for simple expediency. The reviewer however, is quite senior and reasonably immune from any of the possible negative consequences. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 21:01 | comment | added | Bruce Westbury | You should discuss this with the editor. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 20:52 | history | asked | Dirk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |