24

I am wondering if a referee can reveal the title of the papers he/she has refereed for a journal (either by talking about it in the pub, posting it on facebook or another mean) after the decision has been made.

The reason for my question is that I have seen some people revealing titles of the papers they referee but I have not found an authoritative reference for judging this behaviour.

Improve this question
2

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
21

Don't do that.

Everything related to reviewing is confidential.

You will certainly upset some editors if you reveal your identity to the authors without the editor's permission. (Remember that the authors usually know who was the editor. Perhaps the editors did not want the authors to know that they asked you to review the paper?)

More generally, there is nothing to gain by doing this, and everything (= your reputation) to lose. You do not want to do anything that someone might interpret as a violation of the confidentiality of the peer-review process. (Even if you had both the authors' and the editor's permission to publish this information, others might not know that.)

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    For what it's worth, I strongly concur. Even if "nothing bad" happens in many cases, the "bad" that might potentially happen in others far outweighs whatever convenience "only_temporary anonymity" might have.
    – paul garrett
    Oct 5, 2012 at 0:17
  • Thanks for this. I agree, even if this behaviour is not regulated explicitly, the implications of violating this confidentiality can be considerable.
    – Kalel
    Oct 5, 2012 at 9:51
  • I find this answer unsettling: it basically says you shouldn't do it because it may upset some people (the editor, or onlookers), but no reason about why they might be upset (i.e., what is the actual harm). I agree that what you are asking about is not something commonly done, and doing something uncommon may always upset some people, but by this justification it is always a bad idea do to something uncommon...
    – a3nm
    Dec 6, 2022 at 15:52
  • If you want to be in the clear, warn editors about what you plan to do before accepting their review request (so they have a chance to object, and you have a chance to refuse if they object), and point out when you publish the reviews that you are doing so with permission. If you do that, I don't see what would be the problem.
    – a3nm
    Dec 6, 2022 at 15:53
5

I looked up the policy of journals in the fields of physics and chemistry, and their policy regarding reviewers does not directly address your question. Most ethical guidelines say the same thing: manuscripts sent for review are confidential. For example, quoting from the APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct:

Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for competitive gain.

From the more loquacious ACS Ethical Guidelines:

A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.

This clearly covers the case of revealing the part (or any part of it) before it was published, as well as nonpublished parts of the paper (i.e., the published version is of course public, but anything else is still confidential).

However it seems to me that, narrowly read, there is material that this rule does not cover. For example, the text written by the reviewer is not indicated to be confidential (except insofar as it reveals part of the authors’ confidential material), and it seems clear that you retain the right to publish it. (Whether it's a good thing to actually do is another matter. Except in extreme situations, I would advise against it.)

So, once a paper is published, are you allowed to reveal that you were a referee? I think so. Is it a good thing? I don’t think it hurts anyone.

PS: I interpreted your “after the decision has been made” as meaning “after the paper is published”. In the interval of time between editorial decision and publication, it is clear that this information is confidential.

Improve this answer
2
  • Thank you, very good answer. Your interpretation of my French is correct. Indeed, it looks like there is no problem on telling everyone about your previous reviews. The only problem might be possible retaliation if the review was tough or media pressure if the review was too generous (something like " "Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me").
    – Kalel
    Oct 4, 2012 at 19:32
  • 2
    Extrapolating your observations... I think there is "conflict of interest" if there were understood to be any possibility, positive or negative, for referees revealing themselves. Permaninent anonymity avoids several such issues.
    – paul garrett
    Oct 4, 2012 at 22:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .