Thanking previous referees in submissions?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I have a paper that was rejected from a journal, but with an unbelievably helpful referee report that is instrumental in rewriting the paper. How do I acknowledge this anonymous reviewer when I resubmit the paper to a new journal? Is it odd to acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal's review process in a new submission?

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

[U]sually submissions should not include any acknowledgements, so then there's no problem. Once the paper is accepted and you add acknowledgements you can acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal.

I respectfully disagree. When I submit papers to journals, I often include acknowledgments to anonymous referees--usually in footnotes at places in the paper that have been substantially revised due to referees' suggestions. I don't mention which journal(s) the referees were from, as I think that could introduce biases into the review process. But I tend to thank referees because I think they deserve the acknowledgment, and because I worry that if I incorporated a ton of their feedback into the paper without acknowledging them, it might irritate them (or worse) if they are asked to review the paper again for the new journal. I've also never been asked to remove these kinds of acknowledgments in an initial submission precisely because they are anonymized (though if I ever were asked to remove them, of course I would). My understanding at any rate, has always been that the reason that journals ask you to "remove acknowledgments" is to preserve anonymized review and prevent bias (which might occur, obviously, if you write things like, "I thank Derek Parfit and audiences at NYU and Princeton for their feedback").

Anyway, this is just what I do and my experience with my approach. What do you all think?

Comments

[Daniel Weltman]

I don't include any acknowledgements in submissions. So, I agree with the reader who initially submitted a reply. But Marcus's process works too. Anything's fine, really. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[Peter Furlong]

I would fall somewhere between Marcus's solution and one offered by the other reader. I think Marcus's worry about irritating the reviewer (if they happen to review it again) is reasonable, but I also think that you don't want to include anything in the paper that might give a negative impression. Obviously, most papers are rejected at least once, but there is no need to draw attention to this. Even mentioning it might slightly alter the overall impression of a reader. My worry here is slight, so I wouldn't worry much, but I think there is an easy solution. Just add a note in the paper saying that all acknowledgements have been removed. That way, even if the previous reviewer reads it, they will have no reason to be offended, but you will also not signal that this paper has been rejected somewhere else already.

[Trevor Hedberg]

There's always the option to replace an acknowledgement footnote with something like "acknowledgement removed for blind review" if there's a concern about how it would be perceived by current reviewers, but I would definitely support acknowledgements for all referees if/when the paper makes it to publication.