You are supposed to cite your own relevant work and this sounds like he may have not
Double-blind review masks the author’s identity, including self-citations that would identify the author. The author may have done this too effectively, and/or the reviewer was not as familiar with the author’s work as the critique would imply.
A self-citation in a double-blind review should just look like a normal citation of 3rd party work.
Unless you are saying specifically “in my previous work”.
I suppose it depends on the writing style.
Yes, it should look the same, and some journals go as far as redacting the references on the review copy entirely, so they all look exactly the same. That said, if an author is prestigious enough to be known, they need to do more than that to mask their identity. Writing styles and subject matter can give away an author’s identify even if blinded.
I've never seen that. The reviewer is anonymous, not the authors.
In single-blind peer review, it’s just the reviewer. In double-blind, it’s both reviewer and author(s) with different levels of author blinding. Double-blind arguably reduces reviewer bias, but depending on the field and subject matter, once an author is recognizable, double-blinding doesn’t truly mask them.
For you know of any journal/field that does double blind? Genuinely interested.
In my field, there are so few experts we can often know who was the reviewer based on their comments.
I know of several journals, such as this one… ONCOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND TRANSPLANTOLOGY https://www.onmtjournal.org/home/peer-review-policy
I know this because I work for two single-blind peer-review journals, and we’ve received submissions formatted for double-blind review. We don’t bother because, like your field, ours is narrow, but there’s a lot of research, and we can’t publish all of it.
Reviewers were using AI
What are the odds. Of that name, I mean.
At least it's not Plagiarini
General rules:
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
