Should reviewers of papers have their names published?BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7450.1267 (Published 20 May 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1267
- Ioannis Dimoliatis, assistant professor of hygiene and epidemiology (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece
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 …