Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)
EUGENE GARFIELD: Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 2. The Research on Refereeing and Alternatives in the Present System
20 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 propriately anonymous editorial in Nature , is that referees could still be frank about a manuscript's shortcomings without fear of ruining working relationships or being subjected to the anger of rejected authors. 3 2 Such a system would also, in the opinion of J. Scott Armstrong, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, "reduce the prejudice against unknown authors from low-status institutions." 3 3 Many justify the present system by citing what Marcel C. La Follette, editor, Science, Technology, & Human Values, calls the "crackpot avoidance" theory. 34 According to this idea, an author's record of achievement and the stamp of legitimacy provided by the author's institutional affiliation help referees evaluate manuscripts because they constitute presumptive "proof" that the research described was really done. La Follette says that accepting manuscripts without regard for the potential of misrepresentation or error is unwise, but she points out that a prestigious affiliation is no guarantee against fraud —in fact, it may even help the perpetrator evade detection. According to John Moossy, editor-inchief, and Yvonne R. Moossy, managing editor, Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, a common objection to double-blind refereeing is a widespread conviction that experienced referees can identify authors despite the removal of the authors' names from their manuscripts. 3 5 In a study conducted to test this contention, they removed the names of authors and their departmental and institutional affiliations from 33 papers sent out for refereeing from May 1983 through April 1984. Each of the 67 referees, who filed a total of 85 reports, was asked to identify the authors and their departments or disciplines; 34 percent were able to make correct identifications. Eleven percent made incorrect identifications, and 55 percent would not even hazard a guess. Interestingly, only 9 referees objected to the doubleblind procedure; a surprising number — 24—had "no opinion," while 33 favored it, citing such reasons as greater objectivity and less risk of being swayed, either for good or ill, by the author's reputation. 3 5 Another frequently proposed reform is "open refereeing." It is the exact opposite of double-blind refereeing: the referee's name is revealed to the author, who in turn is made known to the referee. Proponents argue that open refereeing might reduce the number of careless and superficial reports, on the presumption that referees will take more care with their reports if they have to sign their names to them. And in fact, I noted long ago that the time of the more qualified referees is of proportionately greater value; thus, they may sometimes be less than enthusiastic over the prospect of a manuscript to evaluate. 3 6 Anonymity is a dull spur to effort; "Aren't we all more likely to do something properly if our name is attached to it?" asks Ronald Mirman, Department of Physics, Long Island University, Brooklyn, New York, in a letter to the editor of the American Journal of Physics. 3 7 Armstrong proposes that referees might designate a portion of their report to be signed and published along with the manuscript. He believes this would provide useful information to scientists because few readers can devote the kind of attention to a paper that a referee gives to it. 3 3 However, a number of problems might be encountered were referee anonymity abolished. For instance, the late Franz J. Ingelfinger, former editor, the New England Journal of Medicine, believed that "the referee who is several steps below the author on the status ladder" might be put in an uncomfortably vulnerable position and might even be unwilling to criticize candidly the manuscript in question. 38 Some reviewers might soften their objections to manuscripts, rather than jeopardize working relationships with the authors. 6 (p. 16) Identifying referees would also enable authors to get in touch with them. This might foster a communication process that excludes the editor, or even exposes referees to verbal attacks. 3' The Perloffs have another suggestion for promoting a greater sensé of responsibility among referees. They argue that
