[ATTW-L] Ethical Question about TC Peer Review

[Duncan, Michael]

I have an ethical question about TC peer review for this listserv.

I recently completed a peer review for a journal in the TC orbit, to remain unnamed. As usual, I requested that my name be included in the review. I have done this for every peer review I've written since 2015. It's an ethical issue that I've written about twice, once in the Chronicle and another in a journal article. I don't feel comfortable hiding behind anonymity. I've never had an editor object in the past, though it's possible that some editor has left my name off a review without telling me. But this is the first time that I know for certain that it's happened, and without the editor asking me if it was ok. I received a copy of the peer reviews after the publication decision, plus an email asking me not to sign reviews. My response to the editor was to note my name was removed without consent, that I would decline to review further for the journal, and if I had been asked to remove my name prior to it being sent out, I would have withdrawn the entire review. The editor made a perfunctory apology but did nothing otherwise.

The milk is spilled, yes, but here's the ethical question. I anticipated something like this happening some years ago, but not the exact scenario. I started to leave a unique phrase in my peer reviews, different each time. If the text of the peer review itself constitutes a kind of private key, the phrase is a public key that would allow anyone with access to the peer review to know who I am, without me knowing who they are. For example, if I announced somewhere that the public key for a recent peer review was "timey-wimey epistemological handwringing," if you saw that in a peer review that you'd received, you'd know I'd wrote it (please note that is not the actual key and exists solely for dramatic purposes).

So, would it be ethical for me to publish that phrase online? On the negative side, it would violate double blind (assuming the author received the key and figured it out, of course). And, of course, peer-reviewed journals are granted by their respective fields, at least informally, rather broad discretionary powers over their editorial processes with which meddling is generally frowned upon - although, I feel that balance of power tends to favor those that already have power, which is why I sign, so people can know what ratfink wrote that review. On the positive side, the review is completed as actually written, given that I expressly wrote the review with the understanding it would be single-blind. I can be held accountable for any incompetence, the editor's misstep is answered in kind, and perhaps the author could confirm, at least, that their peer reviews was not written by an enterprising chatbot. Personal ethics vs. professional ethics? Virtue vs. duty?

My current thinking is that the benefits of correcting a wrong outweigh the sidestepping of a custom. However, it could be argued that I have already corrected the wrong by walking away from the journal. I am amendable.

Mike Duncan, Ph.D. (he/his/him)
Professor of English
University of Houston-Downtown
Managing Editor, Technical Communication & Social Justice

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20240103/44659305/attachment-0001.htm>