[ATTW-L] Ethical Question about TC Peer Review

[Tracy Bridgeford]

Joanna,

I agree with you.

Tracy

Dr. Tracy Bridgeford
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Department of English
6001 Dodge Street
ASH 192A
Omaha, NE 68182

tbridgeford at unomaha.edu<mailto:tbridgeford at unomaha.edu>
402.554.3312



From: ATTW-L <attw-l-bounces at attw.org> on behalf of Joanna Wolfe <jowolfe at cmu.edu>
Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:16 PM
To: "Duncan, Michael" <duncanm at uhd.edu>
Cc: "attw-l at attw.org" <attw-l at attw.org>
Subject: Re: [ATTW-L] Ethical Question about TC Peer Review

Non-NU Email
________________________________
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<mailto: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<mailto:ATTW-L at attw.org>
http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!HQgdhS5PypgRuhfP2puQCu2bjGyv89NPPwvyK-HTlKMb_YXX04mWpxVfV6FGaccxoe8W8tgFo9EbDMDH-GH0CQ$>


--
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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/cmu.zoom.us/my/jowolfe__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!HQgdhS5PypgRuhfP2puQCu2bjGyv89NPPwvyK-HTlKMb_YXX04mWpxVfV6FGaccxoe8W8tgFo9EbDMDH4l0nxA$>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20240104/ce10d573/attachment-0002.htm>