The Molecular Ecologist: Why we do, and don’t, conduct peer review anonymously

Over at The Molecular Ecologist, we’re continuing last week’s examination of anonymity in peer review with comments from our readers. A number of folks sent in thoughtful remarks in favor of anonymous peer review:

I’ve actually done an entirely open review [for Faculty of 1000] and I found the whole experience rather jarring; I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t already like the software in question, and I think that could be unethical. Scott’s a nice guy and a good scientist; I’m not certain I would have been viewed very favourably being one of the first people to criticise the work of another in the open, despite the fact I think such a system has a number of benefits.

And likewise, in favor of signed reviews:

I do think reviewers should be disclosed on publication in order to get credit for their job, but also to take responsibility of it. In general, I also think signing makes the process more transparent and helps engage in a constructive conversation.

There are some excellent points made on both sides, and I recommend reading the whole compilation of views for and against anonymity.◼