3 ms·

In the current system, when you get to see the reviews of your paper, there are still the same challenges for anonymity and ugly consequences that you’re pointi

In the current system, when you get to see the reviews of your paper, there are still the same challenges for anonymity and ugly consequences that you’re pointing out. Perhaps even to a greater degree, because the information is “leaked” through gossip rather than in a formal process. If all reviewer comments were collected and then published at the same time to prevent them influencing each other, how could that make the situation with respect to “frank and honest” reviews any worse than it is already? Are there entirely secret journals where nothing is accessible to non-contributors, for the same reasons? I suspect the answer is no, which is why these feuds often play out in attack-counterattack sequences of published papers.

kilburn 8y ago
> So when you see the reviews of your own paper, there are the exact same challenges for anonymity and ugly consequences as you’re pointing out. Yes, and this already happens (hence the grudges I was commenting about). > How does maintaining secrecy for the per-paper improve the situation with respect to “frank and honest” reviews? By increasing the uncertainty. If I am 95% confident it is you who screwed me last year and 50% certain this paper I got now is yours, I will look at it with a harsher attitude than if I'm only 20% and 20% certain. If you were to publish all reviews then researchers would have much more information to convince themselves that it indeed is "that guy". It is sad, and I personally despise it, but that's what it is from my personal experience. PS: I quit academia after getting the PhD, and this was among the reasons for me to quit. The other major reasons being that I don't want to keep relocating somewhere else in the world every 2 years until I'm in my 40s-50s, I don't like the overselling and result dishonesty in general, and I actually enjoy working in industry too).
- guscost 8y ago
  > By increasing the uncertainty. If I am 95% confident it is you who screwed me last year and 50% certain this paper I got now is yours, I will look at it with a harsher attitude than if I'm only 20% and 20% certain. Ouch, that’s a good (and depressing) point.

kilburn 8y ago

> So when you see the reviews of your own paper, there are the exact same challenges for anonymity and ugly consequences as you’re pointing out. Yes, and this already happens (hence the grudges I was commenting about). > How does maintaining secrecy for the per-paper improve the situation with respect to “frank and honest” reviews? By increasing the uncertainty. If I am 95% confident it is you who screwed me last year and 50% certain this paper I got now is yours, I will look at it with a harsher attitude than if I'm only 20% and 20% certain. If you were to publish all reviews then researchers would have much more information to convince themselves that it indeed is "that guy". It is sad, and I personally despise it, but that's what it is from my personal experience. PS: I quit academia after getting the PhD, and this was among the reasons for me to quit. The other major reasons being that I don't want to keep relocating somewhere else in the world every 2 years until I'm in my 40s-50s, I don't like the overselling and result dishonesty in general, and I actually enjoy working in industry too).

guscost 8y ago
> By increasing the uncertainty. If I am 95% confident it is you who screwed me last year and 50% certain this paper I got now is yours, I will look at it with a harsher attitude than if I'm only 20% and 20% certain. Ouch, that’s a good (and depressing) point.