A group of authors submitted an article to a journal. In the first review comments, one reviewer provided a list of authors whose recent articles (s)he believes are crucial to provide 'agency' to the subject being discussed in their submitted article. They searched for the recommended articles and included those that they think were relevant. The reviewer came back and said they have not addressed the comments hence insisting they address it. They went back and searched further and 'strained' to add few more (40-50%) from those list (s)he provided. (S)he came back again upon submission of the revised article (the second time) that, they have still not addressed his or her comments. (S)he insists that, they should review recent articles of the recommended authors including some three particular articles that belong to the same author and include the references in their article. And that, once that is done (s)he will proceed to review the revised article and the paper's merit for publication. Is this ethical of a reviewer? Is the reviewer perhaps the author of those three articles hence trying to have his papers cited? Is it prudent for the authors to write the editor of the journal and complain about a situation of potential 'arm twisting' although the comments were forwarded to them by the editor?
Use a different reviewer. There seems to be some impropriety here. No reviewer should demand the inclusion of some particular paper or other. Their job is to check the work for factors such as novelty, consistency, quality of work, clarity, plagiarism, and so on, and not to modify the paper or its findings in any material way, or insert references. One of the most famous papers ever published - Einstein's 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' (1905), which formalised Special Relativity, had NO REFERENCES AT ALL.
You can also state what has happened with the editor, in my experience they take those things very seriously.
The ethical implication is that the reviewer has no credibility and the editor/publisher has equally no credibility.
Thank you @Tony Maine, @Miguel Gil and @Kenneth Loebel for the useful comments. The authors are putting a letter together to be sent to the editor.
It is not uncommon for a reviewer to suggest/recommend points to consider/explore including references and the author has discretion to go along with the suggestion/recommendation. It is not impossible that the suggested/recommended author(s) could be the reviewer - in this case, the intention of the reviewer is at issue. If the reviewer is a recognized authority on the subject, or if the added reference iis relevant to the theme or argument of the article, the intention is good because this would help the author extend his/her horizon nad/or catch a missing point so the author will learn something and the piece will be improved. The review passes the ethical test. Otherwise, the reviewer's integrity is questionable. Notwithstanding, repeated demand is unusual. The author should present the case to the Editor-in-chief or Associate Editor for a decision.
Review should be blind. "Arms length transaction" is envisaged, otherwise the objectivity of the review would be eroded. Submitting the list of authors is unethical. It is "arm twisting" for cheap scores.
The processes of ethical review of the proposed writings for publication, should be very clear to both authors and reviewers by the editor of the journal.
I think that in these processes there should be no coercion to make the inclusion of such or that article or quotation of books, it is something that should not be given.
It will be the Editor-in-Chief who decides the best to conform to the ethical codes of good editorial practices to make the decision that does not affect a third party
Interesting question. I was actually just reading about this in the news today. See these resources below, I am sure you will find your answer:
https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-and-reviewers-requiring-authors-cite-their-own-work
and
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00335-7
This is a case that I'd call egoistic maniacism. To be fair, though, I suggest a deep ethical analysis - Ethical Matrix can lead to an overview and Hexa-dimension Metric may help with a balanced view.
Please Go to This Link:
https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/ethics.html
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics