<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Hello, all!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">I literally just pressed "send" on an anonymous review. Taikuu, Mike, for raising this interesting conversation (and for the replies so far).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">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 <i>Kairos</i> 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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">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 <i>Rhetoric Review</i>, 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!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Here's to our field and our willingness to look at our "invisible" practices with a critical eye for social justice!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font color="#222222"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">Chiis-sa v</span></font></font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;white-space:pre-wrap">iñ</span><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font color="#222222"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">auramiglu,</span></font><br></font><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"></span>C<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">ana Uluak Itchuaqiyaq</span></font></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 12:56 PM Duncan, Michael <<a href="mailto:duncanm@uhd.edu">duncanm@uhd.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg1628626161221022616">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_1628626161221022616WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I have an ethical question about TC peer review for this listserv.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(33,33,33)">Mike Duncan, Ph.D. (he/his/him)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(33,33,33)">Professor of English<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(33,33,33)">University of Houston-Downtown<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(33,33,33)">Managing Editor,
<i>Technical Communication & Social Justice</i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ATTW-L mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ATTW-L@attw.org" target="_blank">ATTW-L@attw.org</a><br>
<a href="http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div>