Signed Reviews: Get on the Bus

Double-blind peer review, wherein both the names of authors and the names of the reviewers are kept secret, is often considered the gold standard when publishing scientific research. The primary rationale for this procedure is that it ostensibly reduces bias in the review process; the reviewers, not knowing the identity of the authors, will provide an objective review rather than showing preferential positive treatment or unreasonably negative treatment. Moreover, the procedure ostensibly protects the reviewers from downstream retribution if they provide critical reviews. These are the foundations on which double-blind review rests. It is my contention, however, that these foundations are far from firm, and in some cases may be in shambles. Accordingly, as an author I always submit the most un-blinded paper the journal will allow (variability is great here: some have no standards at all, others are completely unreasonable). Additionally, I have been signing my name to all manuscript reviews that I complete. While signed reviews may be common in some corners of psychology, they are still quite rare in the corners I tend to occupy (developmental, personality, cultural, ethnic minority, counseling) Here’s why I do it:

1) There has been a growing trend in psychology and beyond for increasing openness and transparency in how we go about our research. I strongly believe this is a good thing, and open review is a big part of that. Open-access journals such as PLoS One, Frontiers, and others have options for transparent reviews, and several personality journals disclose the authors’ identities during the review process (e.g., Journal of Research on Personality, Journal of Personality). Indeed, I agree with calls to have peer reviews themselves posted along with the final articles.

2) Signing reviews keeps the reviewers in check, so that they are not so nasty. Just about anyone who has submitted a manuscript for review has received a review that was just plain mean, or at least had comments that they interpreted as mean-spirited. Most of us who have provided reviews on manuscripts have probably crossed the line from constructive to nasty—I know I have. Putting my name on my review indicates that I stand by all of the comments. If I want to be nasty, I can do so, but then people will know that I am someone who stands behind mean comments. I am not that kind of person, so signing my reviews keeps me from acting like I am.  

3) We need to eliminate the guessing game. Authors often seem to think that they know the identity of those who serve as reviewers. In reality, they have no idea. I know people who hate others because of reviews they are "certain" they received from them. They are likely wrong. Interesting recent example: I provided a signed review for a paper submitted to Developmental Psychology, and another reviewer wrote about how it was a major omission that they did not base their study more strongly on one of mine! Had I not signed my review, the authors certainly would have thought that Reviewer 2 was me, when I was actually Reviewer 1 (of course, the hard truth is that we are all Reviewer 2). Indeed, it is common belief that when reviewers suggest including a specific reference, that they have effectively revealed their identities. This is nonsense (a suggestion to include 5-6 papers from a specific researcher, on the other hand…).

4) Serving in an editorial role, I already routinely provide extensive unblinded comments on manuscripts. I find it rather strange that openly providing a critical review in this context is acceptable whereas peer reviewers are supposed to be blinded.

5) I have tenure and so don't give a shit what people think. Ok, that is the common, master narrative about reviewing—that putting your name on your reviews will put you at risk for retribution from “senior” scholars in the field, and therefore it is only safe to sign reviews post-tenure. We need to challenge this master narrative. Rather than a liability, I see providing a critical and constructive review as a way for early career scholars to impress more established ones. As noted in point #2, signing your reviews will likely reduce the frequency of the type of reviews that incite rage. Are we really so fragile that we have to punish individuals for providing honest and insightful feedback on our work?

It is important to note that, even if you should want to sign your reviews, some journals will not accept it. I have received a range of responses. Some have just deleted my name from the review, even when I made it clear that its inclusion was intentional. One editor contacted me to inform me that my name would be removed because identifying one reviewer may compromise the anonymity of the others (I don’t really follow this logic, to be honest). But the vast majority of journals have been just fine with it, so I will keep doing it, and I hope you will too.