[ATTW-L] Ethical Question about TC Peer Review

[Mary Schuster]

I wonder if it might diminish a journal's prestige/rating to subvert the
blind review process. Anyway, as a past editor of a journal (TCQ), I see
the value in the blind review process--to suppress any unfortunate rivalry
or ongoing friendship. After acceptance, it might be possible for an
author/editor to see if the reviewers wouldn't mind being thanked by name
for their contributions to the article. Finally, as an author, I find
myself guessing who the reviewers might be--and I admit that it makes me
uncomfortable to know or discover.

Mary Schuster
Professor, Emerita
Writing Studies
University of Minnesota

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 1:15 PM Joanna Wolfe <jowolfe at cmu.edu> wrote:

> I think it would be wrong to subvert the editor's policies.
>
> Editing a journal is a lot of work and I am extraordinarily grateful to
> those people who take on that work. I think the editors should have the
> privilege of setting the journal policies, even if I disagree with them. As
> you indicate, individuals have the right to decline reviews if they
> disagree with those policies (though of course you should not submit to a
> journal that you are not willing to review for).
>
> I also personally think the ethical arguments in favor of double-blind
> peer reviews outweigh those against it. I worry that if the norm is to be
> public, junior scholars will be reluctant to reject articles by people who
> might one day be in a position to review their tenure case (or other
> publications).
>
> Also I was in the position of receiving a signed review on one of my
> submissions recently. When it took over 8 months (!!) to get a response on
> my revise-and-resubmit, I was tempted to reach out to the reviewer who had
> signed. I found myself wishing I did not know the person's identity so I
> would not be tempted to reach out.
>
> But to the larger question, I think it would be bad for the field for
> reviewers to undermine the policies set by journal editors.
>
> My $.02.
> Joanna
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 12:56 PM Duncan, Michael <duncanm at uhd.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ATTW-L mailing list
>> ATTW-L at attw.org
>> http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Joanna Wolfe
> Teaching Professor, English
> Associated Faculty, Mechanical Engineering
> Carnegie Mellon University
> 5000 Forbes Avenue
> Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> Zoom: https://cmu.zoom.us/my/jowolfe
>
> _______________________________________________
> ATTW-L mailing list
> ATTW-L at attw.org
> http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20240103/103c11d4/attachment-0002.htm>