In article <Dec.126.96.36.199.1992.3147 at net.bio.net>, kristoff at net.bio.net
(David Kristofferson) writes:
>....... faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were
>excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from
>........ but I was wondering whether or not any journals ever review papers
> either completely blind (no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation)
> or partially blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)? This might be an
>> Dave Kristofferson
and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on**
the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the
journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled).
This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit
to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews.
Peter M. Muriana