Reaching out to an author whose paper you refereed post-publication, or to a referee who reviewed your work?

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

Is it okay to reach out to an author whose paper you refereed after it has been published? I would only do so to compliment the author and/or continue a conversation that the paper/comments may have initiated. It might also be a good way to make a professional connection? What are the norms here, if any? On the flip side, is there a way to contact those who reviewed your own work after it has been published? Again, I would only do so in a friendly manner (to continue a conversation, to thank them for good comments, etc.)

Hmm, interesting questions. I guess I worry a bit about reaching out here, it could give rise to a sense of owing the other person something in the future. But I'm not sure.

What do you all think?

Comments

[I don't know ...]

I think a better approach is to contact an author of a paper after it appears in print (say, on the journal website), and tell them you read their paper and liked it. You need not disclose that you refereed it. That is something you can save for later, if the relationship develops.
Indeed, I contact authors occasionally whose papers I have liked - sometimes I refereed the paper, sometimes not. Indeed, I have even written letters for people whose papers I refereed 8and they did not know I was the referee!), for prestigious fellowship, tenure ...

[academic migrant]

I wish some referees could contact me. There was once a referee wrote something like the paper is good, but it is also worth being followed up by several papers further developing the idea. I think it would be nice if they could tell me what those directions were or even coauthor with me...

[could be good]

I once had a reviewer email me to say "congratulations" after the paper was published, and it totally made my day. Rev 1 had been supportive of the paper from initial review, made some genuinely helpful suggestions, and turned out to be a philosopher whose work I admire. It was a nice way to wrap up that paper's path to print, and for me emphasized in a useful way the idea that review and revision at its best is a friendly, collaborative project, not just anonymous judgment.

No doubt there could be reasons to maintain anonymity after the fact, but in those cases where the review process is friendly and collaborative, I don't see any problem with saying "hey, thanks, that was fun" after the paper is in print.

[no]

I've been told it's very unprofessional to reveal one was the referee, and have to say on the occasions it's been revealed to me I've also felt weird about it. You can make the connection without disclosing you were the referee. Anonymity in peer review is already threadbare (people google abstracts etc) - I think it's best to take opportunities to live up to the expectation of anonymity when one has them.

[Amma]

The refereeing is done! In some disciplines (e.g., social psychology) reviewers routinely sign their review, and it’s happened to me in philosophy too. The point is that the reviewers (and ideally, editors) don’t know who the authors are. It’s above board in my view. Just beware that people might see things differently, as a couple of commenters seem to, though I was surprised. Also be genuine, as it sounds like the OP is—networking is transparent even if you think it isn’t.

[grymes]

I’d like to echo “could be good”. A senior philosopher sent me a very kind and encouraging email, indentifying themself as a referee (I had already suspected as much—niche subject), after one of my first papers was published (while I was on the job market). I was and remain extremely grateful, and don’t see any harm it could have done.

To the commentator “no” above: could you explain what is supposed to be unprofessional about it, or why you’ve felt weird about it? Isn’t the important role played by anonymity complete by the time a paper appears in print?

[Yourb]

It’s already been published. It’s fine to contact the author and tell them this in my opinion. Though if others think it’s dodgy then I suppose that’s a reason against doing it even if, as i think, they shouldn’t find it dodgy.

[Patrick Lin]

I'd think the power dynamic here is important.

If you're a senior scholar who's reaching out to a junior scholar, it might be ok to disclose your role as one of their reviewers. But not the other way around, as there would be a risk of questioning your integrity, if the senior person could ever be in a position to help you in any way.

Probably best to never disclose that you were a reviewer to the person in question. Not sure what's to be gained, that couldn't be gained in other ways, besides self-serving interests...