[ATTW-L] Ethical Question about TC Peer Review

[Cana Itchuaqiyaq]

Hello, all!
I literally just pressed "send" on an anonymous review.  Taikuu, Mike, for
raising this interesting conversation (and for the replies so far).

While I appreciate the accountability of signing reviews, I believe that
there already is some accountability built in on the journal's side. For
example, the EIC, the assistant editor assigned to a manuscript, and often
the managing editor see the full contents of one's review with name
attached. If there is an issue with a review being problematic, there is
also a reviewer "scoring" option in many publication portals (for larger
publishing houses). When I was the managing editor of TCQ, if there was a
problematic review that came in, I would notify the EIC and potentially
flag the reviewer's profile. Believe me, I remember those instances and I
have definitely chosen to not engage with those scholars or their
scholarship as a result.

Another point of accountability that happens in some journals' review
process is that the EIC sends their decision, comments to author/s, and the
complete set of reviews to the reviewers (in a BCC fashion). I have
appreciated receiving those detailed updates as an acknowledgement of the
labor involved in reviewing and for me to learn more about the process of
review and critical reading/evaluation as an early-career scholar learning
how to evaluate scholarship effectively, equitably, and kindly. In the
*Kairos* review process, which is a more open, collaborative review, I have
to stop myself from reading the other reviewers' reviews before reading the
manuscript so I can come to my own conclusions about the piece. However, in
articulating my review, it is useful to read the other reviews and build
upon what has been stated by my peers.

One thing that I am really loving in our field right now is our focus on
ethical, equitable, and socially just peer review. I've published and
presented on this topic and believe it is an important issue in our field.
I don't have an opinion about signing reviews and generally check the
"acknowledge me as a reviewer if/when published" box when it is available.
When I've published in *Rhetoric Review*, part of the final markup is the
addition of a written thank you of the reviewers by name (provided by the
journal post-acceptance) in the acknowledgements section. I have had people
tell me they reviewed a manuscript of mine post-publication and it resolved
some feelings of wonder I had--I thought I knew but I was wrong!--but those
feelings are fleeting and generally are more noticeable when the review is
highly positive or highly negative. If a review is, IMO, problematic or
misses the point, I have emailed the EIC and had a conversation with them.
Sometimes I fret about if my review does the article justice or if I have
to be critical, if my feedback is generative. When I've acted as an
associate editor for TCQ, there were definitely some reviews that were
easier to make a publication recommendation to the EIC from than others!

Here's to our field and our willingness to look at our "invisible"
practices with a critical eye for social justice!

Chiis-sa viñauramiglu,
Cana Uluak Itchuaqiyaq


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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20240104/b05ba4ba/attachment-0002.htm>