9

I serve as an associate editor at journal X and recently handled a paper, which I finally rejected after multiple rounds, mainly because of the points raised by a reviewer R. R's points were quite pertinent, and addressing them would have meant a rather thorough rewriting of the paper. The authors chose not to do so but to defend their current paper. Reasonable people could disagree here, and I decided to reject, which was not an easy decision, because the paper was very interesting otherwise.

R indicated that they did not want to re-review yet another revision.

A few days ago, a different journal Y sent me an invitation to review this exact paper. (It's single-blind, so I see that the authors and the title are identical, so it is the paper.) I'm a bit torn, because R's points are relevant, but the paper is interesting otherwise.

I don't know yet whether the authors have addressed R's points in the new submission, because I can so far only access the abstract.

I currently lean towards accepting the invitation to review, and include R's points in my assessment of the current version. However, even if I don't state in the review that I got those points from R (I would definitely tell the editor), it will be quite obvious that I either am R, or at least have seen R's review for X. I still believe this procedure makes sense, because I believe it will increase the chances for a fundamentally good paper to be published, in an even better shape than it (likely) is now. But this of course is ethically iffy: it interferes with review confidentiality, and by not explicitly acknowledging that I got these points from R, I would essentially plagiarize their review.

So should I explicitly acknowledge that I got some of my points from an anonymous review of an earlier version that I saw? Or should I take the easy way out and decline the review invitation?

Improve this question
1
  • 3
    Assuming similar selectiveness and focus of the journals, I would find the combination of “reject as editor” with “later help getting it accepted as reviewer” iffy. It wouldn’t feel right to me. Personally, I’d recuse myself. Commented 12 hours ago

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13

I suggest that you inform the editor who asked you for their advice in how to proceed. I wouldn't recommend you accept unless you give the editor all you say here. You can also recommend R as a reviewer, or even ask R for permission to raise their points, as needed, in your own review if you accept.

Give the editor full information, including the positive things about the paper to be fair to the authors. The editor could worry about potential bias or decide that including you or R is the best course.

Improve this answer
7

If you really want to review this paper, then you certainly have to tell the editor and R (if you use their comments at all).

But, unless there really aren't other people who could review this paper as well as you can, I would simply say "I have seen this paper before and do not feel I can review it now".

Why tread on even possibly unethical ground? Even if you convince yourself that this is OK (after getting approval), word gets around. Gossip happens. Gossip isn't always accurate and you don't want people saying "Did you hear what Stephen did on XXX's paper?"

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.