I recently reviewed a paper, which I ended up loving. I felt as though the paper was mine. Although my name is nowhere to be found in the published version, I am in there. I spent much time and effort on it: I wrote hundreds of words in recommendations, some of which were important and accepted by the authors, improving the first version of the manuscript and resulting in version two. Then a new cycle began. And all this depended on my dedication and voluntary contribution—at the expense of my own papers, and at the expense of building my own curriculum vitae. Reviewing does not seem to count for much. But why not? Shouldn't it?
Some two months later the editor asked me to review the second version of the manuscript. In doing so I felt—besides helping the authors and editors—a great responsibility to readers. I felt I needed to protect the readers from “junk information” and to contribute to the dissemination of the truth (and only the truth). I had to work hard. In my mind I had to reload the first version of the manuscript, seen some months ago and meanwhile deleted from my memory. I had to check the second version against the first. I had to check my previous comments, other reviewers' comments, and the authors' answers. I had to review the second version from the beginning, to make a new decision and to formulate my new comments. I also had to conform to the editor's deadline and other restrictions.
As reviewers we have a crucial role in combating information pollution
Believe me, I worked hard. I forgot to keep note of the time I spent working on the review, but it consumed at least three working days. I acknowledge that I am not the most experienced of reviewers, that I am not a speed reader, and even that I am slow to come to a judgment; but even the fastest and most experienced reviewers, if they want to do the job adequately, have to dedicate a good chunk of time and effort. As reviewers we have a crucial role in combating information pollution, and we have a huge responsibility to readers, to other researchers who will use the paper, and to the ultimate beneficiary, society as a whole.
However, the final readers of a journal are given little information on this process going on in the background. Who were the reviewers of the printed article they are reading? What exactly was the contribution of those reviewers?
Is disclosing reviewers really a bad thing? Reviewers of rejected articles are not known to readers and will remain unknown. Is this reason enough to keep the reviewers of accepted papers a secret? It might be argued that authors of rejected papers could, in the light of the comments of the reviewers, incorporate the suggestions and criticisms into a new version of the paper, which they could then submit to another journal. In this case the names of the initial reviewers would never be known. But this is no reason not to acknowledge the reviewers of the accepted paper.
Reviewers can be likened to interviewers in newspapers and magazines: they “interview” the paper to discover whether it is worth some space in the journal. Interviewers' names are always published with the article—sometimes in bold. Let me make a proposal. Some reviewers contribute more than others. Since the contribution of such reviewers could be substantial, including analysis and interpretation of data, revising the paper critically for important intellectual content, and approval for publication, it could be said that they even meet the criteria for authorship. If reviewers' names were published, the risk that reviewers would reject fewer papers, so that their names appear at the end of as many papers as possible, could be avoided by having authors rate the reviewers' contributions according to a quality checklist. Authors might rate reviews as useful, creative, constructive, or crucial to their paper. They might be asked whether a reviewer's comments have improved their article or to rate the improvement on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). It needn't be the authors who rate the reviews, but perhaps the editors, or both (or others?). It is not, of course, the number of reviewed papers but the quality of the reviewing that matters (and that should count in a reviewer's curriculum vitae).
These days articles are often published with lots of dates (dates of submission, resubmission, acceptance, publication), a statement on competing interests, another on financial support, and details of what was done by which authors. But not a single word is given on who the reviewers were.
In general we demand that any sources that might make an article partial be reported. Reviewers make an article better. So, aren't they worth mentioning? Don't they have an influence that is at least equal to any factor that might detract from the worth of a paper, such as authors' competing interests?