Identity of a supposed anonymous referee revealed through “Description” of the report
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
add a comment |
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
add a comment |
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
peer-review paper-submission editors acknowledgement journal-workflow
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
edited May 7 at 11:47
299792458
2,70331536
2,70331536
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
asked May 7 at 10:09
user108493user108493
10613
10613
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
12
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
54
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
May 8 at 2:52
2
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
May 8 at 3:13
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f130203%2fidentity-of-a-supposed-anonymous-referee-revealed-through-description-of-the-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
12
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
54
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
12
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
54
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:
- Reply as if the review were anonymous
- Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
edited May 7 at 15:20
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
answered May 7 at 10:29
Cameron BrickCameron Brick
1,017110
1,017110
12
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
54
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
12
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
54
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
12
12
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.
– yo'
May 7 at 13:02
54
54
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:22
10
10
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.
– yo'
May 7 at 14:32
29
29
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)
– David Richerby
May 7 at 14:38
13
13
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.
– R.M.
May 7 at 15:18
|
show 14 more comments
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
May 8 at 2:52
2
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
May 8 at 3:13
add a comment |
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
May 8 at 2:52
2
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
May 8 at 3:13
add a comment |
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
answered May 7 at 10:34
Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist
21.9k84589
21.9k84589
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
May 8 at 2:52
2
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
May 8 at 3:13
add a comment |
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
May 8 at 2:52
2
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
May 8 at 3:13
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
May 8 at 2:52
Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.
– Brian Moths
May 8 at 2:52
2
2
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
May 8 at 3:13
@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers. That's not the issue here.
– Anonymous Physicist
May 8 at 3:13
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
add a comment |
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
answered May 7 at 10:28
alloallo
2,246518
2,246518
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f130203%2fidentity-of-a-supposed-anonymous-referee-revealed-through-description-of-the-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
