当前位置: 首页 > 期刊 > 《英国医生杂志》 > 2004年第2期 > 正文
编号:11356008
Should reviewers of papers have their names published?
http://www.100md.com 《英国医生杂志》
     EDITOR—Dimoliatis's cri de coeur for better recognition of reviewers of papers has much merit.1 Some of your respondents,2 however, are concerned that the quality of peer review could suffer as reviewers succumb to the temptation of seeing their names in print; the counter argument so cogently put forth by Yeluri et al (letter in this cluster) is a forceful one: reviewers' reputations are at stake if a substandard article passes through.

    Although most journals do not publicly acknowledge the efforts of their reviewers, which are so essential to the credibility (and quality) of the published work, some appease their reviewers by publishing their names periodically. Several open access publishers, as other respondents have pointed out, publish full details of the review process alongside the published paper.2

    I dare publishers to go one step further: publish a list of all papers received and rejected at peer review, with the names of the reviewers. This would ensure the highest quality of peer-review, greater transparency, and a sense of justice for authors of rejected papers. I would then be interested to see if such papers eventually find a home, and in what form.

    Akheel A Syed, specialist registrar

    University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH a.a.syed@ncl.ac.uk

    Competing interests: AAS may live to regret his dare.

    References

    Dimoliatis I. Should reviewers of papers have their names published? BMJ 2004;328: 1267. (22 May.)

    Electronic responses. Should reviewers of papers have their names published? bmj.bmjjournals.com 2004. bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7450/1267 (accessed 28 May 2004).