Not always—it depends on the publisher for sure, and possibly the field (e.g., physics, chemistry).

In biology, you have several models for peer review. Completely blind reviews where both reviewers and authors are anonymized. You also have semi blind models where the reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors don't know reviewers' identities. You also have open reviews where everyone knows one another's identities.

In completely blind and semi-blind models, you occasionally have reviewers that reveal their identity.

She was told to read and cite the other work. I take that as meaning she hadn't intended to use her previous work as a source, but they wanted her to

It's a catch-22 situation. You are supposed to disclose if you wrote the thing you're citing, but also cite in third person, and also it should be obfuscated for the peer review. So, what happens is that you write something like "in the author's previous work (yourownname, 2017)…" then that gets censored by yourself or whoever is in charge of the peer review, "in (blank) previous work (blank)…". Now, if you're experienced in reviews you can probably guess it is the author of the paper you're reviewing quoting themselves. But you still don't know who it is, and you could never guess right whether it is Ruth Gotian or not. So you're back to the tweet's situation.

You do need to do that though.

If someone wants to read further information they need the citations.

You are supposed to cite all your relevant previous works in each paper you publish.

When I was in graduate school I got snared into evaluating potential new professor hires. One guy had like a couple of thousand publications, but they were all in journals that he had founded and was the editor of and nobody but himself and his friends ever got published in them. Amazingly, his CV included the publications and also all the journals that he founded and was the editor of. I pointed this out in a meeting and somehow this did not disqualify him from consideration. I was like, is this what everybody in academia does?

I Am Pagliacci

I am Bibliography

Et al phone home!

I used to make this joke in graduate school all the time and nobody ever knew what the fuck I was saying. Maybe on Lemmy it will finally hit home!

The implication that the reviewer thinks they're stupid and need to read more papers and try again.

Not that they're mis-citing works.

No should, but must.

In Academia, stupid as it is, if you use or cite previous work of yours without citing it, it's plagiarism.