In a recent post on this blog, I complained how refereed publications have become a proxy for other kinds of individual and institutional assessment. This now imposes quite a burden on many of us. I usually referee 20 papers every year. (Judging from this post on the Leiter Report, that is more than most, but not by a huge amount.) At approximately three to four hours per paper, this means I spend nearly nine working days every year reading these papers.
People sometimes try to raise the bar on refereeing. There has been discussion in various forums about how long it is permissible to take over a paper. A while ago, Dave Chalmers proposed one month as a reasonable guideline, and many people, including David Velleman responded that this was unreasonably short. I myself try to give a quick response—if I accept, I try to read the paper the first time I have a morning open. But I sometimes get bogged down. A short while ago, I had a remarkably rude communication from an editor because I had taken too long with something. I could understand the editor's frustration, and I regretted my own dilatory nature. But clearly this person forgot who was doing whom a favour. Under the circumstances, scolding me for being late was a presumption. As my children used to say, he is not the boss of me. The profession seems to be getting an undue sense of entitlement regarding the availability of referees.
These things considered, I received with considerable dismay Todd May's suggestion that it should be "general practice" that referees append their names to reports. The suggestion, posted by Mark Lance, is entitled "Why Peer Reviewers Should Not Be Anonymous". Clearly, it is extremely unpleasant to have to make one's negative opinions known to authors. So why should one do it?
I couldn't see any strong reason offered in favour of this policy. Professor May says, first of all, that he does a better job when his name is appended. Well, the opposite is true of me. When I am not anonymous, for example when I comment on a paper at a conference, I am painfully polite. Writing journal reviews this way would take me much longer, and the result would be much less decisive, since the editor would have to decode everything I said. I am not rude, at least I don't think so, but I am direct. I'd be surprised if this isn't what editors want.
Aside from defences against objections, the only other reason Professor May gives is "professional decency". I simply do not understand this. Where did this notion of decency come from? I fully understand that it is not "decent" to talk about your friends behind their backs. Is May's notion of decency an extension of this? But there is no application of that principle here. Referee reports are professional assessments. Extending the "don't talk about friends" principle to this case is without merit. I am quite often asked my opinion about various things that affect people personally. I write tenure and promotion assessments, am asked whether so-and-so would be suitable for such-and-such. Sometimes I read published papers and tell my friends how awful they are. Should I write the author and share my opinion?
I hate to admit it, but I even gossip. Shamefully, I do talk about my friends behind their backs sometimes. People share their opinion with me about all kinds of things, and I do the same with them. Must I copy my target on all of these assessments? (Hey Steve, Joan and I were talking about you yesterday, and we think you should treat your wife nicer. Hey Joan, Steve and I were talking about you, and we think you look a bit tired these days.)
Why should I reveal my referee reports? Is opprobrium from my professional peers supposed to be a part of my job? OK, OK: I have no decency. But do explain the issue to me.
Recent Comments