Tit for tat
Reader comment on: Crovitz on Anonymity
Submitted by agesilaus (United States), Nov 30, 2009 15:13
The obvious reason that the commenters remain nameless in theory is to avoid tit-for-tat retaliation for comments that the author didn't like. Of course it can be used to abuse the process by hiding the fact that these people were reviewing each others papers and it was no secret to the authors who was doing the reviewing.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this item
| Title |
By |
Date |
| Climate Gate [125 words] | Quinn Woodworth | Dec 1, 2009 14:16 |
| "Heed My Opinion!" vs. "Look At What I Found!" [210 words] | bobby b | Nov 30, 2009 15:41 |
| then whats the point of this site? [60 words] | Fen | Nov 30, 2009 15:37 |
| apples and oranges [102 words] | Jeff | Nov 30, 2009 15:35 |
| Why is it different? [56 words] | scott | Nov 30, 2009 15:31 |
| ⇒ Tit for tat [57 words] | agesilaus | Nov 30, 2009 15:13 |
Coastal property...
[w/response] [24 words] | newscaper | Nov 30, 2009 15:09 |
| Questions [65 words] | BillW | Nov 30, 2009 15:04 |
| Whistleblowing is different than stealing or trespassing [108 words] | Independent | Nov 30, 2009 15:03 |
| All secrets are not the same [109 words] | Shannon Love | Nov 30, 2009 14:53 |
| caution in revolutions [53 words] | Michael Kennedy | Nov 30, 2009 14:47 |
Comment on this item
