3 ms·
Interesting. I don't think I do, or would have, feared blowback from giving a negative review - but I have no way of knowing for sure. I do know that I'm genera
by scott_s 13y ago
Interesting. I don't think I do, or would have, feared blowback from giving a negative review - but I have no way of knowing for sure. I do know that I'm generally reviewing papers because a colleague asked me to, or asked me to be on the PC. So, in that instance, I'm more concerned with doing a good job in the eyes of my colleague.
I do know that I have received many cursory reviews where the reviewer did not fully read the paper. I have often wondered if single-blind the other way would be better: reviewer signs their name, but paper authors are anonymous. While this may fix the crappy review problem, it is susceptible to what you fear.
- arjunnarayan 13y agoSome reviewers do (voluntarily) do that[1]. I would seriously consider doing so once I'm tenured (i.e. when I feel I am immune to blowback). I would hope that those cursory reviewers resulted in feedback from the other PC members that fix the issue (either through improved future reviews, or not being invited back to be on the PC.) [1]: http://se.ethz.ch/~meyer/publications/online/whysign/ http://se.ethz.ch/~meyer/publications/online/whysign/
- scott_s 13y agoI've heard of others who do that, too. The difficulty is that those who self-select to sign their own name are probably not part of the problem.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoI sign my reviews unless I'm involved in some sort of post paper evaluation. It seems only fair since the reviews aren't double blind (given double blind, I would not sign). I also publish reviews on my own papers as a matter of interesting record.