🚀 go-pugleaf

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>In article <nolan.671566523@helios> nolan@helios.unl.edu writes:
>> Incidentally, that first post called for the creation of a reviewing
>> process like that used for professional journals, so the insistence of
>> anonymity for those reviewers who desire it should not come as much of
>> a shock.

>The shock is that you would have even considered the opposite. It is
>exceedingly rare for a referee to give his name. Ever.

When I edited the LISA proceedings, I (as `moderator') collected the
referees comments, filed off the identifying marks, and passed them
on to the authors.  In several cases the reviewer volunteered to be
identified to the author or asked to contact the author directly.  In
several cases the author asked for clarification on a comment and the
reviewer then made direct contact with the author.  So I would disagree
with "exceedingly rare".

Andrew did originally presume complete anonymity.  I (among others)
asked for permission to contact the author directly if circumstances
seemed to warrant.
-- 
"Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide."
  Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte.  Quoted in Digital Review, Feb 4, 1991.