Welcome back--I hope you didn't encounter any annoying tourists from Indiana in whatever part of the galaxy you enjoyed.
WK writes:
Well many review processes ask you to suggest someone people you think would be a suitable reviewers already so as far as 'picking' reviewers goes I think there is already an established element of this.
Picking seems different from suggesting, though both would definitely reduce the number of axes to be ground.
As to comments being made public, I don't see why it should necessarily change what they say, in some ways this is a reflection of the way the system is organised.
Speaking for publication is always different.
Because the reviewers need to be on the editorial board many of them are not in a position to be cowed. These aren't necessarily people just starting out on their research careers who need to avoid treading on the toes of big guns. When Nature and others did some experimental testing of open peer review in the 90's they found that a lot more people refused to review papers when asked, but the editorial board of Biology Direct already know the score and have signed up for it.
That's more persuasive--but it also sounds like evidence for the notion that making comments public makes a difference.
I'm not sure why the opportunities for abuse of anonymous review are only occasional and those for reviewer timidity in open review are ever-present. I would have thought that the opportunities are ever present in both cases, but similarly often not pertinent. But the opportunity existing seems to be all you are going on, and I have to say that the reviews for the Koonin paper don't seem all that timid to me.
The abuse of anonymous review seems more likely to be only occasional for several reasons. First, in all cases, I assume the likelihood that the folks reviewing the paper are scientists with a personal and professional commitment to good science. Human nature being what it is, I also assume some scientists will exploit the opportunity--for personal grudges or professional rivalries, perhaps. I think that the authors' opportunity to suggest reviewers, the more probably objective perspectives of the other reviewers, and the possible consequences of gaining a reputation as a poison pen would all help to minimize both the occurrence and the impact of abusive anonymous reviews.
Allowing authors to select reviewers whose comments will be made public, on the other hand, makes a structural element of the converse difficulty--obtaining reviews that are as sharp and objective as possible. I assume the best of all parties involved in this circumstance, too, but I also assume there will be abuse here as well.
The inhibitory effect of published comments, and the inhibitory effect of biting the hand that chose you, seem ever-present and difficult to manage. Appraisers who value homes under the pending purchase price too often don't get repeat business; reviewers who more highly appraise others' work, rather than losing the opportunity like abusive anonymous reviewers, might well instead gain opportunities. You move from a process that would appear to reduce the possibility of an anonymous poison pen to one which would appear to eliminate it nearly completely--but at the price of a constant risk of allowing the selection of sweet pens, with no specific countervailing structure.
In the case at hand, I understood the author was an editor selecting reviewers from his own editorial board. I would have thought that, like Caesar's wife, an editor's submission would have more independent review than other authors', even at journals with open review processes.
I certainly think there is room for a diversity of different approaches to editorial review and it certainly doesn't hurt the vigour of scientific research if we don't just limit ourselves to one review model.
That sounds reasonable, but I wonder how we would gauge any pernicious effect of the change.
Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James
™ Version 4.2
