Timeline for When (if ever) disclose your identity as a reviewer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2012 at 14:28 | comment | added | Papiro | Just one word: never. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 13:09 | comment | added | Chris Godsil | In reference to Gordon's comment, as a referee it is always a good idea to write your report as though the author will find out who refereed it. This will improve the tone of the report. Note though, that from I have seen authors are not good at guessing who the referee was. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 12:46 | comment | added | Chris Godsil | @Denis Serre: Of course. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 5:39 | comment | added | Denis Serre | @Chris. "...is why editors are so well paid ..." is a joke. Isn't it? | |
| May 30, 2012 at 2:59 | comment | added | Gordon Royle | When reviewing however, be prepared for your anonymity to be compromised. I once got three reports from an editor which were PDF files labelled Smith.pdf, Jones.pdf and Bloggs.pdf where Smith, Jones and Bloggs (not their real names) are people known-to-me working in the area. Unless the editor was having fun, for example, by getting a grad student to write a report and then giving it the filename Gowers.pdf before sending it to the author, I now know the identity of the three referees. (Luckily all reports recommended acceptance!) | |
| May 29, 2012 at 23:03 | history | answered | Chris Godsil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |