Timeline for When (if ever) disclose your identity as a reviewer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2012 at 15:22 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @godelian: An example may help. Wiles's first manuscript (the incorrect one) was not publicly circulated. Let's pretend that the preprint was "leaked," and someone else managed to plug the gap first. Wiles would then probably not get as much credit as he does today for FLT. If there's no way to prevent this kind of thing, then people may become even more secretive in their efforts to protect their access to credit. Or else fewer people will try working on high-risk projects because they know they won't get enough credit. Either way, it could have a stifling effect on the progress of math. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 20:00 | comment | added | roy smith | @Yemon, As encouragement, I know "thanks for useful comments" can mean: correcting an erroneous proof, pointing out a serious gap, making the observation for which the paper is usually cited, or essentially writing a whole chapter of my book. But we also have exemplary models by some of the best authors and geometers alive, e.g William Fulton, in Intersection Theory, where dozens of previous workers are generously and accurately credited with important ideas. An equally generous and scholarly example is Geometry of Algebraic Curves, by Arbarello, Cornalba, Griffiths, and Harris. Keep heart. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 5:47 | comment | added | roy smith | @Yemon, I also agonize over the consequences of this policy, but it still seems correct, even if difficult. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 5:33 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | <whinge>Roy Smith's remarks reminded me that I refereed, not that long ago, a very demanding paper where in one place (not really the heart of the main problem) I found a way to streamline things slightly. I duly mentioned this in my report and it was implemented by the authors. However, although the published version thanks the anonymous referee for "hard work and useful comments", it doesn't actually say "The original version of Proposition X was longer, and the current version is based on a suggestion of the referee".</whinge> | |
| May 31, 2012 at 1:46 | comment | added | roy smith | I see no objection to providing ones ideas anonymously as part of the referee report. It seems part of the referee's duty to make improving comments, but not to ask for credit for them. In the dark ages when I was young it was fairly common for an author to acknowledge helpful improvements from an anonymous referee. I see no problem with foregoing credit for unsolicited improvements to a project in which I was not a requested collaborator. But i feel kind of like a cranky old dinosaur for saying this. I apologize for that musty odor of formaldehyde and self righteousness. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 22:23 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @SamuelReid I was not aware that Erdos was a paragon | |
| May 30, 2012 at 21:53 | comment | added | Chris Godsil | @godelian: An author submits a paper to a journal in confidence, and it is forwarded to the referee(s) in confidence. If the editor accepts the paper then the journal has the write to publish it; no-one else does. I know of at least one case where a very senior and highly regarded mathematician was very annoyed because details of their work leaked out. I do not understand why they did not want their results released earlier, but it's their choice. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 20:34 | comment | added | user9072 | Your answer seems to implictly assume that the author(s) made a concious choice not to make the paper publically available. Sometimes my papers are simply not available online just so. I certainly agree one must not take advantage of being a referee at the author's expense. But something like described can be a win-win situation. So I agree with you (daveh) that the authors if they wish to have a rigth to privacy. But they might not want it. Thus, I think to try to make contact, likely prefarably via the editor, is a good idea. If they say 'not' it's 'no', but they might also be happy. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 20:28 | comment | added | Samuel Reid | I agree with godelian! Do you think Erdos ever cared about waiting before he published something for one of his collaborators to extend one of his results? | |
| May 30, 2012 at 20:23 | comment | added | godelian | I really can't understand why...It seems very silly to me to waste the opportunity to further develop the frontiers of current mathematics just because an author wants to keep the ideas for himself for a while. We cannot afford that! Mathematics should be considered universal patrimony of human kind. That kind of attitude from an author should be discouraged; it is also very narrow-minded in my opinion. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 19:54 | history | answered | daveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |