Bsrgvty

Why do Computer Science degrees contain a high proportion of mathematics?

Find number 8 with the least number of tries

Does immunity to fear prevent a mummy's Dreadful Glare from paralyzing a character?

How do I get my boyfriend to remove pictures of his ex girlfriend hanging in his apartment?

In the twin paradox does the returning twin also come back permanently length contracted flatter than the twin on earth?

Can there be an atomic nucleus where there are more protons than neutrons?

Is it a bad idea to get a PhD?

How are Aircraft Noses Designed?

What are the branches of statistics?

How should I understand FPGA architecture?

Car as a good investment

Are dead worlds a good galactic barrier?

Why is Trump releasing or not of his taxes such a big deal?

Is aerodynamics study compulsory for building a plane?

Remove last letter 4 times, get a real word each time, starting word is a car model

Usefulness of Nash embedding theorem

What does this text mean with capitalized letters?

On notice period - coworker I need to train is giving me the silent treatment

Is it possible to have 2 ports open on SSH with 2 different authentication schemes?

Is Schrodinger's Cat itself an observer?

Hero battle game

What are some non-CS concepts that can be defined using BNF notation?

I got this nail stuck in my tire, should I plug or replace?

Is there a historical explanation as to why the USA people are so litigious compared to France?

Identity of a supposed anonymous referee revealed through “Description” of the report

Are reviewers supposed to know each others' identity, after the reviewing process is finished?Is it appropriate as a referee to contact an author after the editor rejected the manuscript?How to acknowledge contributions of anonymous referee in new paper?Research assistant wishes to remain anonymous, what to write in the acknowledgement?Is it normal that journals strongly suggest a professional English editing service?When peer reviewers are public/open, are they less likely to be critical of a manuscript?Who to contact when handling editor is anonymous and manuscript is delayed?How to force a journal to address an associate editor's scientific misconduct?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;

21

2

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

share|improve this question

edited May 7 at 11:47

299792458

2,72333 gold badges1717 silver badges3737 bronze badges

asked May 7 at 10:09

user108493user108493

10611 silver badge33 bronze badges

add a comment
 | 

21

2

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

share|improve this question

edited May 7 at 11:47

299792458

2,72333 gold badges1717 silver badges3737 bronze badges

asked May 7 at 10:09

user108493user108493

10611 silver badge33 bronze badges

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

share|improve this question

edited May 7 at 11:47

299792458

2,72333 gold badges1717 silver badges3737 bronze badges

asked May 7 at 10:09

user108493user108493

10611 silver badge33 bronze badges

share|improve this question

edited May 7 at 11:47

299792458

2,72333 gold badges1717 silver badges3737 bronze badges

asked May 7 at 10:09

user108493user108493

10611 silver badge33 bronze badges

share|improve this question

edited May 7 at 11:47

299792458

2,72333 gold badges1717 silver badges3737 bronze badges

asked May 7 at 10:09

user108493user108493

10611 silver badge33 bronze badges

edited May 7 at 11:47

299792458

2,72333 gold badges1717 silver badges3737 bronze badges

edited May 7 at 11:47

299792458

2,72333 gold badges1717 silver badges3737 bronze badges

asked May 7 at 10:09

user108493user108493

10611 silver badge33 bronze badges

asked May 7 at 10:09

user108493user108493

10611 silver badge33 bronze badges

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

48

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

share|improve this answer

edited May 7 at 15:20

answered May 7 at 10:29

Cameron BrickCameron Brick

1,09233 silver badges1111 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  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

22

I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:34

Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist

27.1k1010 gold badges5353 silver badges114114 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
 | 

6

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.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:28

alloallo

2,43511 gold badge66 silver badges1818 bronze badges

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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

48

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

share|improve this answer

edited May 7 at 15:20

answered May 7 at 10:29

Cameron BrickCameron Brick

1,09233 silver badges1111 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  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

48

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

share|improve this answer

edited May 7 at 15:20

answered May 7 at 10:29

Cameron BrickCameron Brick

1,09233 silver badges1111 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  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

share|improve this answer

edited May 7 at 15:20

answered May 7 at 10:29

Cameron BrickCameron Brick

1,09233 silver badges1111 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

edited May 7 at 15:20

answered May 7 at 10:29

Cameron BrickCameron Brick

1,09233 silver badges1111 bronze badges

answered May 7 at 10:29

Cameron BrickCameron Brick

1,09233 silver badges1111 bronze badges

answered May 7 at 10:29

Cameron BrickCameron Brick

1,09233 silver badges1111 bronze badges

22

I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:34

Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist

27.1k1010 gold badges5353 silver badges114114 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
 | 

22

I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name. It is unimportant. Do not name the referee in your manuscript.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:34

Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist

27.1k1010 gold badges5353 silver badges114114 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:34

Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist

27.1k1010 gold badges5353 silver badges114114 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:34

Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist

27.1k1010 gold badges5353 silver badges114114 bronze badges

answered May 7 at 10:34

Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist

27.1k1010 gold badges5353 silver badges114114 bronze badges

answered May 7 at 10:34

Anonymous PhysicistAnonymous Physicist

27.1k1010 gold badges5353 silver badges114114 bronze badges

6

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.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:28

alloallo

2,43511 gold badge66 silver badges1818 bronze badges

add a comment
 | 

6

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.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:28

alloallo

2,43511 gold badge66 silver badges1818 bronze badges

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.

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:28

alloallo

2,43511 gold badge66 silver badges1818 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

answered May 7 at 10:28

alloallo

2,43511 gold badge66 silver badges1818 bronze badges

answered May 7 at 10:28

alloallo

2,43511 gold badge66 silver badges1818 bronze badges

answered May 7 at 10:28

alloallo

2,43511 gold badge66 silver badges1818 bronze badges