No review process should create more mental prisons than necessary ! There exists no objective review, but mental fashions, group think and career interests. In addition, all journals do have owners and have to watch for market share. One could rather ask, if reviewing can be done in an ethical sound manner. It all depends on the exact agreement for the review process, in this specific case. What has been signed?

I think it may not be ethical to do so.

I would declare my interest, but undertake the review.  It is not your own work, and you merely offered advice in its preparation (the same as you would hopefully do when you act as a reviewer). If however you have some relationship with the authors that is a potential cause for bias or impartiality, then you need to decline.

Hello

 i also think it may not be ethical to do so , as Dr. Sircar answer

regards 

I believe there is nothing wrong in reviewing a paper for a journal after I had earlier read and offered a feedback on the draft to the authors. In this case, I should declare the nature of the conflict of interest to the journal.

I think a good review of academic papers must be free from any conflicts of interests. If we are dedicated to science, I don't think we would engage in any debasing actions that would mar the quality of a paper. If we have had a touch on the paper with our constructive suggestions at the draft stages for the authors, we should leave the review after the submission of the same paper to a journal to other seasoned scholars for their expert views, suggestions, and queries. This would heighten the quality that is expected of excellent scientific papers that all of us as researchers must earnestly pursue. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Be part of elaboration of the article does not exclude an own judge of the final version.

totally unethical

Many thanks for these helpful answers. I will wait for more comments/advice before I decide on what to do. 

Decline the invitation, since it is not a fair game anymore!

If a manuscript is rejected by a journal, then the authors may submit it elsewhere. May be the same person as reviewer for more than one journal. Because, each and every journal has its own review and editorial process. For example, I have submitted a manuscript to three journals (one by one) which was rejected. Now, the same manuscript is in the review process in a scopus indexed journal.

While some said that it is unethical, others said otherwise. Please has anyone experienced a similar situation before? I am aware that this is just a coincidence, so that is the reason for this question. 

It is unethical if you will not tell the editor that you know the authors and you had already read the paper before submission. Let the editor decide on whether you will still be asked to do the review or not, which may depend on their policies. If the editor decided to let you still do the review, go on. You, yourself, know better than others on what is ethical and fair and what is not on that particular situation. 

I'm going to chance something of critical thinking here and risk being misinterpreted. My starting point will be to pose the question: Why do journals have editorial boards? Why do they take so much trouble to review papers and in some cases, make elaborate suggestions for improving the quality of certain papers prized highly for their subject matter? I would think the primary concern of editorial boards and the entire review process is to ensure that accepted papers meet the established standards. I do not think the purpose is for ethics and law. Can we get to the spirit of the law as different from getting hung up on the letters of that law? Having said that, let me also say that I am not sure ethical considerations apply when editorial assistance is rendered before submission of a paper and not during the review process. At any rate, if the reviewer herself or himself finds that it constitutes a conflict of interest, they should opt out of reviewing that particular paper. I once had cause to decline reviewing a paper which I recognized as one that had been presented in a parallel/study group I moderated. The author's views ran counter to those of the group including myself. I therefore declined in order to give the author a fair chance for an unbiased review from other eyes.

Hello 

I totally agree with Romer Castillo. It is ideally not ethical matter. 

Liqaa 

In my opinion, decline the invitation.

Many thanks Dr Derra for your suggestion.

Generally final decision depends not only on single reviewers feedback. It appears to be unethical but may be accepted if reviewer has no issue with authors. Attempt should be to maintain neutrality.

Here it will be interesting to know what will be feedback of other reviewer.

Many thanks Dr Artur. Your answer is very helpful. Yes, I am also an advocate of open peer review. 

decline

Thanks for sharing. I agree with Artur and with some other good previous answers, even if it never happened with me. Transparence should rule. One of the most important duties of a reviewer/referee is to be independent in its judgement and act without any bias. S/he should be transparent and declare any interest or previous participation in the preparation of the manuscript. If he is not able to be independent and has any personal interest in favor or against the work, he must decline immediately the invitation. A previous support may be irrelevant, an example: a competent teacher helps the students in the learning as much as possible, but has the duty to be fair and impartial (and he is fair and impartial) in the evaluation of the exams. The objective is the scientific work, not the persons.

Probably some reviewers/referees and Editors do not have competence or minimal Ethical standards for the work they are performing. If their name and reports was public and not anonymous they could not violate the ethical rules systematically without any penalization.

Dear Emeka W. Dumbili 

Thank you for this question,  actually, from the scientific and  ethical point of view, this type of  papers  must be decline. 

If the authors ask the expert to have a look at the manuscript at the preparation stage, and if the expert gave the authors comments that help improve the manuscript, then the authors should acknowledge the expert for critical reading (explicitly declare in the manuscript). Then, the editor does not pick up the expert as a reviewer for the manuscript. Nevertheless, if the expert is invited to review the manuscript, the expert may decline the invitation due to a conflict of interest.

Broadly speaking, coworkers of the authors, and the coauthors of the authors’ other recent papers are supposed not to serve as reviewers for the manuscript. If they serve as reviewers, their comments are generally supportive, which sometime lack the objective evaluation. For the purpose of fairness and the quality of peer review processes, editor may pick up one reviewer or two from the list of preferred reviewers proposed by the authors (i.e., those who are expectedly supportive of the manuscript), as well as other reviewers who were not proposed by the authors (i.e., those who may be or may not be supportive). In some journals (e.g., PNAS), if two of three reviewers are supportive, and if the last one of them is not supportive, then the manuscript will be rejected with any chance of the revision.

very simple: when asked to review an article in which you have any prior role: decline. The same holds when asked to review an article by colleagues or good friends or people you had any disagreement with in the past. In short: avoid being biassed at any time when reviewing, double blind review is in my opinion to be preferred at any time.

In my opinion, you should review it unbiased because 1) you are not the only reviewer for the  final decision. 2) If you think paper deserve merit and many peoples should know about this ideas then what's wrong with reviewing it. 3) Its the editor who decide about publication and go for it. 4) Lets think if paper advised for publication by you and paper got rejected by a valid points raised by another reviewer then you can see your face in mirror!!!

5. lastly, even after publication the weak story will not be cited (*)

Krishna

Definitely you need to review it as the sending person does not know . You need to express all aspects according to the criteria of journal for reviewers and recommend either acceptable or needs corrections as your observation

Thanks very much Dr Ashique for your suggestion. 

Dear Dr. Emeka W. Dumbili, I would prefer to decline since further review process would not be able to add further instructive aspects so that it is accepted with our without revisions.

There is no point in self-evaluation what @ Ashique Ali is advocating.

@ Ashique Ali, your logic sounds immoral, how does it matter whether the editor knows it or not, what matters is, if the reviewer knows everything very well, it his moral duty to bring same into the notice of the editor that same be reviewed by some other person for such and such reason . One cant ply faux. Ethics is not the book of rules one should go through and follow, ethics are one's resolve and commitment that he/she will refrain from all unacceptable practices and will remain fair and honest in his/her every endeavor.   

I would not review it and will like the Editor know my reasons.

Many thanks Drs Ramesh and Emmanuel. Your opinions are noted.

In some special case, due to lack of reviewer, it may be OK, of course with no any reservation.

Many thanks Dr Faramarz E. Seraji for your helpful answer.

Dear Dr. Emeka W. Dumbili,

Good greeting

Regardless of ethical point of view, it is illogical to review myself. For me I apologize to review such an article.

Kind regards

Raid

Is it ethical to review a paper for a journal after you had earlier read and offered a feedback on the draft to the authors?

There can be situation whereby lacking competent reviewer, the editor might ask the author to provide several potential reviewer names during manuscript submission.  The author might propose name(s) of reviewer that had helped him or her before.

Suggest the reviewer share the entire issue & its background with editor & let the editor to decide on the next step.  

Also if it is double blind review, the reviewer can't be sure the manuscript that s/he is reviewing is the one that s/he has helped.  There is possibility the manuscript can be slightly different i.e. includes other write up portions that the reviewer might not have helped before.

In my opinion I refuse. Best regards. 

Well said Dr Han Ping Fung! The manuscript may have changed because the author(s) may have asked other researchers to provide them with feedbacks too, and then incorporated both mine and theirs to the manuscript. 

yes by informing the editor that you had reviewed and given feedback earlier.

I think the most appropriate action is contained in the second response proposal, "Tell the editor". The editor has to make the basic decision on published articles.

I think it would be better to ask for Editor's opinion.Under any circumstances good information should reach to other researchers.

If all your initial comments have been implemented, then it is best to decline the review offer in order to improve the quality of the article.

Many journals invite a corresponding author to nominate up to 5 potential reviewers with whom they have not had close contact, such as co-authors and university colleagues, among others.

Having given comments on a paper does not preclude you as a referee.

Did they acknowledge you in the lead footnote, as would be professional courtesy if they found your comments and suggestions to be useful for their paper?

It depends, if its a blind review then you have to inform the chief editor but otherwise just review the paper without compromises.