I also agree with the first option. This is consistent with the practice in Wikipedia
where "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under CC-BY-SA
3.0......" when someone clicks on the "submit change" button.
We can revise the phrasing in the peer reviewer form to spell this out clearer.
Andrew
________________________________
From: peteb(a)doctors.org.uk <peteb(a)doctors.org.uk>
Sent: November 21, 2022 10:47 AM
To: WikiJournal User Group participants and followers
<wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [WikiJournal-en] Re: Publishing names of reviewers (21.11.22)
I think your first suggestion is the better one.
Best wishes, Peter
On 21/11/2022 06:52, Michaël Laurent wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On one of the manuscripts I am editing, the reviewer initially agreed to publish her name,
and now is requesting upon revision that her name be removed.
Needless to say that this puts us in a tricky situation.
I would therefore propose that either we clearly state that identity if revealed on the
first set of reviewer comments, cannot be hidden anymore.
Or, maybe more cautiously, that we shield identity until the article is published (which
is common in many journals). Because often discontent arises during the revision process.
Your thoughts please,
Thank you
Michaël
_______________________________________________
WikiJournal-en mailing list --
wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikijournal-en-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikijournal-en-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>