Peer review-Faseb J. editorial
berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Mon Oct 30 10:17:58 EST 1995
On 30 Oct 1995, Sean Eddy wrote:
> In article <Pine.3.89.9510282004.A27412-0100000 at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) writes:
> [about signed vs. anonymous peer review]
> Dr. Berezin, I'm just curious -- do you sign your reviews?
No, apart one or two cases I don't do this. I don't believe that
to rectify such fundamental aberration as system of anonymous PR,
individual Don Quixotian examples can do too much. Howewer, in
all cases I am reviewing (papers only; I don't review grant
proposals), I provide all suggestions to the author(s) on how the
paper can be improved (even if it is truly weak paper). I never
mark box "reject outright" and write instead to the editor that
I am leaving decision with him/her.
Obviously, if I will see a case of a clear plagiarism or exact
repetition of already done work (of which the author may be
sincerely unaware), I will reject such a paper (and state
the reasons), but so far it never happen in my practice.
Saying all this does not preclude me from criticising APR as
a SYSTEM and keep finding more and more arguments against it.
And I repeat: so far, I have NOT seen one truly convincing,
irrefutable reason FOR Anon.PR (why it is better than the
open) : if you do have one, please put it forward for the
> - Sean Eddy
> - Dept. of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine
> - eddy at genetics.wustl.edu
More information about the Bioforum