has been issued by “Dan Nexon”:http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2009/04/peer-reviewing-call-to-arms.html
bq. I just turned down a request that I review for a journal because, in part, they failed to send me an anonymized copy of the decision letter the last time I reviewed for them. And this despite the journal using an electronic review system that automates the process. I can think of a number of reasons why all peer-reviewed journals should be required to supply reviewers with copies of their decision letters. In no particular order: It provides closure to the reviewer. … It helps improve the quality of reviews. … It helps me with my own work. … UPDATE: a reader emails me a fourth reason: … (4) It keeps editors honest.
bq. Almost all of the major North American journals in political science provide decision letters to reviewers. The sociology journals I’ve reviewed for do as well, but, somewhat puzzlingly, send the letters via snail mail. The European journals are much spottier in this respect. Some (*cough* Millennium *cough*) won’t even send these materials–unless requested to do so–when asking for a second-round review! But, regardless, given the almost universal use of electronic systems for submission and review, there is simply no excuse for not providing anonymized decision letters to peer reviewers. It seems to me that there’s only one way to ensure that journals “do their duty” on this front: refuse to review for them unless they do. So I’m calling–right here, right now–for reviewers to boycott the holdouts.
I’m not sure that I would boycott a journal that didn’t offer me copies of the decision myself – there are a few journals I am aware of that don’t seem to use electronic submission systems, and while they _should_ still send the final decision to everyone, I can see how it would be logistically difficult. But I do agree that it is weird not to send out copies of the decision when you do have an electronic submission system, and can easily let reviewers know (I presume) by shifting around the automatic options on your review processing system a bit, and am happy to volunteer to send a Stiff Note to the Editor when this happens, in order to exert a milder pressure …