[ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health

[Jeff Terry]

I would argue that thanking an anonymous reviewer for helping make a  
point is completely different from thanking reviewers by name for  
"the opportunity to speak with and learn from Drs. Chris Busby and  
Michel Fernex at the Hamburg conference. Their contributions to this  
paper stem from their long-term, on-going, related research as well  
as, more particularly, to the helpful and thoughtful comments they  
gave as peer reviewers of the submitted manuscript."

It is a practice of mine to suggest reviewers for my papers (when  
journals request this information) that I haven't worked with in the  
past. I have no idea who actually reviews the papers that I submit  
but I would find it somewhat unseemly if I only had friends and  
colleagues review my work.

Jeff

On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:08 AM, alanpeg at sbcglobal.net wrote:

> Before retirement I often did peer review. I would send comments  
> such as "you would make your point more convincingly if you  
> plotted ..." or "you really have two papers here. Please rewrite so  
> that one is on subject A and the other is on subject B." Sometimes  
> the authors thanked the anonymous reviewer, often not. The writing  
> style of many scientists (including me) is often terrible and, if I  
> could help clarify the writing, I felt I was doing a service.
>
> Al Rosenfield
> Columbus Ohio
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Terry" <terryj at iit.edu>
>
>> Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for   
>> helping you in an article and still call it peer reviewed.
>