There’s been some discussion lately on reviewing for journals, with many comments on having too many reviews to do… As an aside, I say yes to every review request (unless I am patently unqualified) because 1) I believe I have an obligation to do so (altruism) and, more importantly, 2) I want editors to remember me as someone who takes the job seriously, provides a good review, and does it in a timely fashion (self-interest). In any case, I don’t have the too many reviews problem (yet?) but there is a piece to it I don’t really get and would appreciate some comment from others.
Twice in the last few weeks I’ve received papers to review where I knew who the authors were and had read the papers before. I always disclosed to the editor that I knew the author(s), had read the paper before, etc, etc. In one case, the editor still wanted me to review it. In the other, the editor said they would look elsewhere for a reviewer.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it’s a small world, right? I would argue that the degree to which we have expertise in a given field (a good thing in a reviewer, yes?) is highly correlated with the likelihood that we know the author and have seen the paper before. On the other hand, knowing someone well as colleagues and friends may come with implicit obligations that might make reviewing papers objectively hard. This problem might be worse among assistant professors since we know how much the author *needs* the publication — and, we also may be the people most likely to say yes to reviewing because we’re not yet inundated. This problem isn’t solved by, for example, not having someone review a paper if it was written by a colleague in their own department. We all, of course, have much larger networks and these networks are as (or more?) important for your career than your in-department social ties (see scatterplot’s grad student question of the week if you require convincing on this point).
Here’s my question: Do all of you disclose stuff like this? What sorts of things have to be/should be disclosed? Does it matter? And, does the way in which I disclose personal ties to an editor send a signal to them about whether (or the degree to which) I would be a biased reviewer? I sometimes feel in writing the email and reading the response that I am involved in a subtext discussion, where the editor is the only one aware of the subtext… Some rules on all of this would be much appreciated.
I don’t see grey area here. If I have reviewed the paper already as a peer, I decline to do so for a journal.
It bears noting that every time I have declined to review a paper, I have always sent two or three suggestions of colleagues I believe might serve as suitable, replacement reviewers.
I’ve never felt ambivalent about this, so I’ve never given the editor the decision.
That makes sense, though I guess I defined things too narrowly in my post. The grey area I’m thinking about are when you know the conference paper or you read the paper for some other forum. It’s the overlap between expertise and [lack of] anonymity that concerns me most, and I suspect this will only get worse.
I did send suggestions for other reviewers — but I had trouble with this too because, again, we all know each other’s work. It’s a good rule — if I’ve reviewed as a peer, then I shouldn’t review for a journal. In any case, it all seems a little messy to me.
I disclose the details. Sometimes the editor says “review anyway” and other times the editor says, “Ok, thanks, we’ll find someone else.” I should say that I disclose when I have previously commented on the paper either personally or on a panel or in reviewing for another journal. And I recuse myself when the author is my own former advisee, especially when the paper is from the dissertation I supervised.
However, if I have not commented on the paper and merely recognize the author’s work because I know what that person is doing, I don’t recuse myself. If I eliminated all the people whose work I recognize, I would not review much. My life would be a lot easier, so perhaps I should rethink that policy.
Note that this cuts different ways depending on whether you know you like the paper (or that author’s line of work) or know you don’t like it.
Ok, so you’re addressing a situation where, for example, you hear a paper delivered at a conference, or even one in which you select a paper for inclusion at a conference, and so you know the author’s identity. Later, you’re asked by a journal to review that paper, so what do you do? I think I’ve got it straight now.
This reminds me of jury instructions a bit, but I think that if you believe you will read the argument on its merits, that is the qualification to serve. If you feel that your (positive or negative) disposition toward the author will determine your decision, then you should decline. Admittedly, most of what we experience is matter of degree–influence “more or less”.
I think you’re a good person, and an ethical professional, so you’ll always behave in accordance with your decision. Of course, there are other people in the profession who are not going to do so, but I don’t think changing the system of peer review will fix them or prevent them from doing harm.
Thanks for the input, it helps to know it’s a judgement call. I’ve felt really unclear on what the norms are…
In my post, I definitely wasn’t going to raise the problems associated with recusal (or not) based on “whether you know you like the paper (or that author’s line of work) or know you don’t like it” and that “there are other people in the profession who are not going to do so” for unethical reasons.
I also recently got a paper to review that was my dissertation topic with a slightly different outcome (mine is still under review). I swear I did it better but recusal that time was a no-brainer. Here again, the person who is most expert on a topic might have reasons for not being a terribly objective reviewer. This is the bigger discussion to have, I suspect, but I’m not touching it!
[...] posed a question about how to deal with review requests for papers that she’s read and commented on before. By [...]
i’m selfish, so more concerning for me is thinking about how the different approaches to reviewing ethics affects the way my own manuscripts are handled. i have a pretty identifiable research agenda and work in a part of the world that’s a little off the beaten path. i sincerely hope that colleagues who recognize a manuscript as probably mine would not recuse themselves solely on this basis; that would take the people who are best qualified to review my work out of the pool. thus, i behave the same way you do when reviewing papers – disclose the previous exposure to the paper letting the editor know that i still feel comfortable reviewing it if they’re okay with it. i’ve never been very conflicted about that.
[...] March 29, 2008 Reviewing etiquette Posted by publicprivate under Uncategorized | Tags: academia | I know better than to try to figure out who authored a paper I’ve been asked to review. And I know not to circulate the “for peer review only” version to colleagues – even if the topic may be very interesting and relevant to them. But as New Soc Prof has pointed out, there is a substantial amount of grey area in the blind peer review process. [...]