Search

It is a common practice for authors of an academic work to thank the anonymous reviewers at the journal that is publishing it. Allegedly, scholars thank the reviewers because their comments improved the paper and thanking them is a proper way to show gratitude to them. Yet often, a paper that is eventually accepted by one journal is first rejected by other journals, and even though those journals' reviewers also supply comments that improve the quality of the work, those reviewers are not customarily thanked. We contacted prominent scholars in bioethics and philosophy of medicine and asked whether thanking such reviewers would be a welcome trend. Having received responses from 107 scholars, we discuss the suggested proposal in light of both philosophical argument and the results of this survey. We argue that when an author's work is published, the author should thank the reviewers whose comments improved the paper regardless of whether those reviewers' journals rejected or accepted the work. That is because scholars should show gratitude to those who deserve it, and those whose comments improved the paper deserve gratitude. We also consider objections against this practice raised by scholars and show why they are not entirely persuasive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the impact of generous acknowledgment of readers to the works of publication writers. The author shares his experience of receiving email from a reader offering favorable comment on his essay, which led him to jot down notes during conferences to let the speakers know his appreciation of the ideas shared. According to the author, a writer's goal is to share valuable ideas, but knowing that one's written work has been read and appreciated brings ego gratification.