editorial
Anonymous Reviewers. OK. Anonymous Authors?
C
onducting peer review of chemistry research manuscripts with scholars who remain anonymous to the manuscript authors is by far the most common mode of peer reviewing in our field. The underlying philosophy is that a reviewer is apt to be most candid about identifying flaws in a manuscript when there is no chance of precipitating subsequent personal confrontation or enmity from the authors, who may be valued acquaintances on otherwise good terms. The state of reviewer anonymity comes with obligations of the reviewer to write in an objective and respectful manner (which does not preclude blunt criticism as long as it is impersonal) and to refrain from writing a review if some unalterable bias exists toward the authors or their scientific approaches. It is the responsibility of the Editor to be sensitive to any appearances of reviewers behaving otherwise or making inappropriately personal remarks. These points are part of the “Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research”, which are followed by all ACS journals, including Analytical Chemistry. The ACS Editors are deeply committed to and take responsibility for updating these Guidelines; they comprise an extremely valuable code of conduct, all predicated on reviewer anonymity. The Guidelines permit a reviewer to voluntarily sign a review if he/she wishes to be transparent about a conflict of interest. Many years ago, it was actually standard practice for reviewers of Analytical Chemistry manuscripts to sign reviewsOa signature line was even provided on the (paper) review form. I signed many such forms as a young chemist-reviewer for Analytical Chemistry. Self-identification by reviewers worked fine within communities of study which were more or less congenial (as was/is electrochemistry) and less well within those that were not. The practice faded away probably owing to the latter circumstances being exacerbated by open criticisms of pet ideas and experiments. The present system of anonymous reviewing works well, especially when backed by the formal Ethical Guidelines. Proposals now exist for a crudely parallel scheme: that authors of papers submitted to journals remain anonymous from
10.1021/AC101168V 2010 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Published on Web 05/11/2010
the reviewers who critique their contribution. Like a bad penny, this idea keeps appearing. I periodically receive inquiries or surveys from individuals who evidently choose to promote the practice. I ask, what is the possible utility of this idea? One claim is that anonymity could place junior scholars on a more level “playing field” with senior ones in the peer review evaluation process. On an idealist surface, this is not a bad objective. Its underlying presumption is that reviewers are less critical of well-known senior authors who have a track record of past quality research than of a relatively unknown author. I believe that this premise is rarely true and that much of the time, the opposite holds. Reviewers familiar with the author’s previous work, if they hold it in high regard, may use respectful language, but they definitely react negatively if the work being reviewed is less sound or impactful than the author’s previous contributions. Knowing the author, the reviewers would not waste time and energy asking questions that are already answered by the author’s previous work; knowing an author’s abilities to execute (or not) difficult experiments also gives a sharper focus to the reviewer’s remarks. Finally, if the author’s identity was not evident to the reviewer of the manuscript, the author’s writing must conceal connections to his/her past work. Research is often a building of new knowledge on top of recent knowledge, whose trail often leads through a common laboratory. The reviewers’ understanding of the level of innovation in the submitted manuscript is erased if the trail is not clear. The proposal of anonymous authors is a bad penny that should be melted down.
JUNE 1, 2010 / ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
4305
