From Una's comments on reviews:
>On one paper I wrote, both reviewers not only were glowing and kind,
>but offered additional references and unpublished data, and signed.
>Neither reviewer knew me or my co-author, so this was not a case of
>the buddy network in action. Oddly, the cover letter from the editor
>was hostile, stating that to get the paper up to snuff would require
>a complete re-write. Perhaps the editor rarely gets a submission in
>ready-to-accept condition? My co-author and I worked *very* hard on
>that paper, and fought a lot over the discussion section, but to me
>those nice reviews more than made up for the effort.
The most helpful review I ever got (a "publish if these points are addressed" review) was 2
pages of point by point details, with references and suggestions, and signed. The other
reviewer wrote a half page paragraph saying the work was unremarkable and didn't sign. I
think this is a place where the "blindness" of peer review has an unintended negative
effect. When people sign their names to a review, I think they are much more likely to put
the effort into doing a good job and not taking nitpicking pot shots. The second reviewer
did no favors for either the editor or the authors; the editor did put more weight on the
reviewer who was careful and signed, and we addressed the problems and published.
Accountability has its benefits...
