1

One journal that I think of, for example, is Nature Communications.

Why does the author choose to publish the peer review report of their new paper?

Is it to educate others who are submitting papers to the journal?

The peer review reports are pretty interesting to read: some are short and to the point (mostly flattery, with some short recommendations for revision), and some are very long, detailed, and maybe a bit harsh or rude.

A related question, reviewers, e.g. for Nature Communications, have the option of being named in the peer review report, for recognition of their review efforts. Are their names known in advance, during review, before the paper is accepted or rejected? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but just wondering.

1
  • "The peer review reports are pretty interesting to read" - that alone is a pretty good reason already, don't you think? May 23 at 23:19
2

Are their names known in advance, during review, before the paper is accepted or rejected?

Depends on the journal. At Nature family journals, I believe the identity of reviewers that choose to sign their reviews is only revealed at publication time.

Why does the author choose to publish the peer review report of their new paper?

I imagine it is because they are primarily supporters of the concept of openess in peer review. I pass no judgement on the merits either way here, but you can't be a supporter of the theory of open review (and therefore gain its benefits - like more reluctance of the part of the reviewers to be unfair), and then not opt to publish the reviews of your papers.

It will also help readers to have confidence that the paper has been properly reviewed.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.