Peer Review Anonymity
berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Tue Oct 31 10:32:47 EST 1995
On 31 Oct 1995, Sean Eddy wrote:
> In article <Pine.3.89.9510300956.A28890-0100000 at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) writes:
> >On 30 Oct 1995, Sean Eddy wrote:
> >> 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....
> Forget about rectifying the system for a minute. If you feel
> strongly about the moral bankruptcy of anonymous peer review --
> why are you not signing your reviews?
> I'm pushing on this point a bit because you're calling for arguments
> in favor of anonymous review, if any exist. Why do *you* submit
> anonymous reviews? Nobody's stopping you from signing your name to
> the bottom of your reviews.
In short, Dr. Eddy, you avoid to present an argument in favour
of Anon.PR (in you have any) and instead resort to discussion
of personalities. None of us is perfect and we all do
occasionally slip from the standards of academic discourse.
In my reply yesterday to Dr. Grover, I have (mistakenly) made
such a personal remark and just have send my apology to
However, we should keep discusssing the issue in its merit.
The pointing of fingers on each other is hardly a constructive
way of solving the dispute.
Once again, I invite you to present your argument(s) towards
the discussion of PRO and CON of peer review anonymity.
Should you (or anyone else for this matter) will come up with
some truly strong and unbeatable arguments in favor of APR
I will be more than happy to admit that I have missed something
fundamental for the argument in favor of APR.
> - Sean Eddy
> - Dept. of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine
> - eddy at genetics.wustl.edu
More information about the Bioforum