I like the proposal for an open review process. I imagine it might get a bit messy sometimes, emotionally and politically, but it would also promote transparent and hopefully honest and generative discussion. I wonder if it would be generative, or would it stifle contributions?

@Phillip I agree that it is correct to identify the source of potential conflict. However, I do not think the threshold is whether I believe there is a potential conflict, but instead whether there is an appearance of potential conflict. In legal professional ethics we are taught that the mere appearance of a conflict should be avoided. That's my training, and my motive for asking the question is to sound out whether the approach holds for academic publishing.

Given the scenario I've outlined, arguably a reasonable person (the shopper on the Bondi tram) could form the perception that a peer reviewer might be influenced by their desire to publish in the same issue. I suspect that perception would diminish if the interests were less temporally and spatially 'proximate' - so in the situation where you peer review an anonymous author's work for another publication at another time, I'd expect there to be a low chance of perceived conflict.

In relation to 'why submit to a journal ... such dubious publication ethics' - given the initial dilemma arises after submission there's no basis for forming the belief. In any event, I think my question made clear that the invitation to review was withdrawn after I declared my interest.

I think Mats makes a good point about removing the blindfold - if the peer review process is transparent the potential for conflict diminishes because the peer review is itself peer reviewed by way of being transparent to external scrutiny.

In Polish context in such a case you should decline to take a review, it doesn`t matter blind or known. You should inform the Editor about your decision. It is regulated by the Ministry of Science - because of a potential conflict of interest.

All the comments are interesting . I agree that there is greater chance of bias when authors are competing to be in a special issue in their field. On the other hand the pool of reviewers may be limited in a small or very new field and potentially using the best reviewers may strengthen the quality of the final issue. I do agree that a more open reviewing process, perhaps only for such circumstances might resolve some of these problems.

Thank you Mats, Phillip, Marcin, Steven and Liz for your answers to my question. Each of you have contributed useful insights that have helped me to think about the dilemma. It illustrates that problem-solving an ethical dilemma involves assessing the situation and substantial values as well as dispositional factors, and weighing these against each other. By way of update, the editorial committee behind the most recent request considered my declaration and repeated their invitation, alluding to some of the matters raised in Steven's answer. So I've decided to go ahead with the review - although now I am even more mindful of being professionally rigorous in my work on the review!

I think that's a good outcome. I've written a paper for a special issue and it occurred to me that an open process would be challenging but possibly very fruitful.

I think it is wrong from the editor of the journal to put you in such a situation where there is a conflict of interest . The reviewer is under pressure not to refuse or be rigorous in his review .

If the field is small editors often have to choose between selecting a reviewer who has a live submission to the same issue or having a reviewer outside the field, who may be less qualified. Personally, I prefer to have a qualified reviewer.

Hi Saad - with different people taking on administrative tasks I don't think the editor (or rather the person representing an editorial committee) necessarily knows at first that they are making a request to someone with work submitted to the same issue.

Hi Kristoffer - If I was the editor I will not send a paper for review to an author whose paper is under review at the same time . May be I will wait till a decision is taken and preferably a positive one to send him the paper for review .

Submission of an article to a journal does not mean that one can not be an examiner of an article submitted to the same journal. You may be an expert in a field, and therefore a journal can certainly appoint you as an examiner of an article submitted for possible publication to that journal. At the same time, you have every rights to submit an article to the same journal for possible publication. Why not?

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion - very useful!

You might be interested to know the amusing/annoying outcome of the situation mentioned in my question.

I ended up reviewing the article as requested.

My sole-authored article was accepted for peer review. The journal, however, was unable to have my article reviewed in time for publication.