Timeline for When (if ever) disclose your identity as a reviewer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2012 at 19:46 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @Timothy: I see. I am so used to papers circulating in preprint form for years, that the idea of paper not being publicly available is foreign to me... | |
| May 30, 2012 at 19:17 | comment | added | Dirk | @Timothy: Thanks for the clarification! Somehow it seems that I couldn't make it clear enough... | |
| May 30, 2012 at 14:33 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @Igor: I don't quite understand why you say that "point 2 is moot." As I understand Dirk's scenario, the paper in question is not available to the general public, and the referee's ideas are prompted by the ideas in the paper. Writing to the author about the ideas then automatically discloses the referee's identity. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 3:18 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @Chris: the slow part is usually the editor, since editors usually handle a lot of stuff, in addition to (sometimes) having lives, so if they are organized, they deal with this sort of week at regular intervals (say once a week or, more likely, once a month), which means that by the time the referee gets an answer, he has forgotten the question. Again, I very much hope you have had better experiences. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 3:02 | comment | added | Chris Godsil | @Igor Rivin: Well, I'm assuming it's just emails passing back and forth, the slow part would be the author formulating a response. Very little thought should be required on the editor's part. On the other hand, I once had a paper sit on one editor's desk for a year because it had been forwarded to him without a covering letter (by another editor). But now it's all on computers and everything runs much more smoothly... :-) | |
| May 30, 2012 at 2:37 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @Chris: "A week or two"? You must be living in some other, much speedier, universe. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 2:09 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | @Chris I agree. It was just an amusing tangentially related anecdote. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 2:01 | comment | added | Chris Godsil | Since an author can post the paper on the arXiv, thereby establishing priority, I do not feel that it is a great problem if a week or two is lost to preserve the referee's anonymity. Since the delay is caused by difficulties in the paper, there seems to be no grounds for complaint. Responding to @Andres Calcedo, I suspect we can all offer up horror stories of sufferings at the hands of editors. I do not see that this has a bearing on the general principles. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 0:39 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | I knew of a case where the editor slowed things down ridiculously. Paper was submitted. Somehow, I knew the author and referee. Paper was withdrawn. I found out, told the referee. Editor never told the referee the paper had been withdrawn. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 0:28 | history | answered | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |