The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

When anonymous review is compromised?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

What is the protocol for when a journal (accidentally) reveals identities in a blind peer review? I've experienced this a few times lately, from both sides: As an author, I got the reviewer's comments and could still see their name. As a reviewer, I got a paper that still contained the author's name (both top-level special journals in my field, btw). What should one do in such a case? Report to the journal? Pretend nothing happened? Decline to review?

Good questions, and I'm curious to hear what people think. First, I think it's worth noting that not all journals have anonymized review. In some science-y fields (including some philosophy of science journals), journals have authors submit papers with their identifying issue available to reviewers. So, although I don't know for sure, something like that might have happened here. But, if not, I think the right thing to do is to draw the problem to the editors' attention and, if you're a reviewer, decline to review. I've heard some people say that they tell the editor, and then let the editor decide whether to let the review proceed. But I think this is bad practice. If a journal is supposed to have anonymized review and that is compromised, then the review should not proceed, whatever the editors might say or do–as it goes against the journal's own stated editorial policy. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Posted in

6 responses to “When anonymous review is compromised?”

  1. Elizabeth

    Not exactly the same, but there have been times I’ve been asked to review papers when I knew who the author was (through conferences, etc.). Only once did an editor say they’d find someone else to review it. I think the reviewer crisis is maybe so severe that editors don’t want to make that call. So if we are concerned about anonymity (as a reviewer), then it’s best to just decline rather than leave it up to the editor (since they have an incentive to say it’s ok that anonymity is breached).

    Reply
  2. Shen-yi Liao

    Sometimes reviewers would like to sign their reviews. (I’ve gone back and forth about this myself.) So that might not be inadvertent?
    However, if anonymity of the author were unintentionally breached, I would notify the editor and ask them to reassign.

    Reply
  3. Cecil Burrow

    The world is not perfect, mistakes happen, and finding efficient reviewers is almost an impossible task. As a reviewer, I doubt I would decline to review if by mistake I became aware of the identity of the author, unless I had very strong grounds for thinking I could no longer be objective.

    Reply
  4. whatever

    My two cents on the general issue of anonymous review is that I detect more in more that the review process is basically not anonymous at all once you reach a certain career stage or make it into a certain in-crowd. At that point, your friends are reviewing your work, or, at the very least, someone is reviewing your work who knows it is you from a conference or whatever. I think this happens especially often in subfields. But I am not even sure if this is a bad thing or not. At some point, if people keep turning your paper down on the basis of knowing it is you, what’s the alternative? Never get it a hearing? That seems unfair.
    Now sure, if you branch out into a new area, your work is likely to be reviewed anonymously. But, yeah, my sense is that anonymous review is a farce for anyone other than those who may be more introverted or go at it alone.

    Reply
  5. realist

    Anonymous review is an ideal. As “Whatever” notes, at times it is an impossible ideal. I work on some small topics where I either know most of the key players, or of the work of most of the junior people breaking into the area. I know what is being done in the filed – that is my job. If I feel I am biased against someone, then I would certainly decline to review their paper. But in at least one case I became a very persistent advocate for a paper that I did not agree with, but that I knew pushed the debate forward in a new direction. Of course I knew who wrote it – I had heard it presented at a colloquium at my university, and I had refereed it for two other journals (always recommending acceptance with revisions). We have to keep our eye on the big picture – the point of anonymous refereeing. I am an expert in this sub-field, and I am interested in the area moving ahead.

    Reply
  6. UK Postdoc

    I don’t think the situation where the author is known because they have presented at a conference etc is analogous to the situation here. If I present my paper at a conference, or post it online, I do so knowing that potential reviewers might come to know my identity. But when I submit a paper to a journal with anonymous peer-review, I can reasonably expect that the journal will not reveal my identity. So this situation is strictly worse than some of these other issues with compromised anonymous review.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading