Many researchers indicated some reviewers had “required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s).
Reviewer comments intended primarily to encourage citation of a reviewer’s own work are in conflict with the two roles of the peer reviewer: to help the editor determine a manuscript’s merit and to help authors produce the most scientifically rigorous report possible. Furthermore, authors who receive inappropriate self-citation requests from a reviewer are put in the position of having to decide whether to alter their manuscript, possibly changing content substantively, or to argue against incorporating reviewer recommendations, which may raise concerns about whether their manuscript will be accepted for publication.
What is your opinion?
This behaviour is inappropriate and unethical, and the editorial staff should strip out direct references to a reviewer's own work. I have dropped a line to reviewers doing this on many occasions to inform them that it is unethical. However there are instances where the reviewer simply recommends the most appropriate review as an example, and happens to be the author, which is considerably more problematic. On those occasions, I suggest that the authors include relevant reviews of their choice.
Authors are always free to decline to reference the papers suggested and can stress that they have not included the references (explaining why not) in a cover letter addressed to the journal staff. (I would always capitalise comments that I really need the staff to see as the people receiving the incoming mail are inundated with papers, and might not read every cover letter thoroughly.)
An equally remarkable abuse is when publishing houses demand that authors add relevant papers from their journals to the list of references. I once had an editorial board member inform me that he had been asked by three journals to add at least two papers from journals published by them prior to publication, thereby helping them to augment their impact factor.
This behaviour is inappropriate and unethical, and the editorial staff should strip out direct references to a reviewer's own work. I have dropped a line to reviewers doing this on many occasions to inform them that it is unethical. However there are instances where the reviewer simply recommends the most appropriate review as an example, and happens to be the author, which is considerably more problematic. On those occasions, I suggest that the authors include relevant reviews of their choice.
Authors are always free to decline to reference the papers suggested and can stress that they have not included the references (explaining why not) in a cover letter addressed to the journal staff. (I would always capitalise comments that I really need the staff to see as the people receiving the incoming mail are inundated with papers, and might not read every cover letter thoroughly.)
An equally remarkable abuse is when publishing houses demand that authors add relevant papers from their journals to the list of references. I once had an editorial board member inform me that he had been asked by three journals to add at least two papers from journals published by them prior to publication, thereby helping them to augment their impact factor.
Hi,
Asking a researcher to cite a reviewer's work is an inappropriate practice, and does not fit an objective judgment of the paper that is under review. The reviewer could suggest further citation sources in general, and say that not enough citations were mentioned in the work, but if he would like to recommend several sources, it certainly should not be a recommendation towards his own research.
Dear Mohammad,
Unfortunately this happens occasionally. It is even possible that the journal rejects your paper merely because you haven't got any references from the same journal. This can be a bit understandable as it is a win-win situation both for the author that gets the chance to publish and also for the journal to increase its impact. However, if you talk about a specific reviewer, the case becomes different, as they are considering their own personal benefits in this case, hence if they reject your paper because of this, it is totally unfair, illegal and unethical in my opinion.
It all depends on relevance.
I have had reviewers who suggested that several of their own papers should be cited in revising my paper for possible publications.
Sometimes reviewers include papers that might be relevant to the topic of the paper.
There are occasions when Editors suggest citing papers in the journal within the past 2 years as a way of increasing the 2-year impact factor.
Such editorial "suggestions" are inappropriate, especially before an editorial decision has been made.
Michael John McAleer Many thank for participating in this discussion.
To Mohammad Mehdizadeh:
It is a pleasure to respond to your thoughtful and practical Question.
If the reviewing is anonymous, and the reviewer sensible recommends more than one paper by different authors, how would one know that the reviewer is recommending one of their own papers?
Chia-Lin Chang I had this experience. I sent a critical letter to editor in chief and it turned out the suggested references was belongs to one of the reviewers, and she was removed from review process.
Dear Mohammad Mehdizadeh :
I am pleased to hear that your letter to the Editor-in-Chief had the desired outcome.
Hi,
It depends on the type of citation demanded, if it is relevant or additional information, then it is O K, because it adds value to the paper.If it is irrelevant to the paper's theme, then it is unethical, and obviously, the reviewer in this case is looking to enhance his impact.
Dear Respected colleges
Many thanks for your contribution and valuable comments.
If the reference is relevant to the ms, and is the latest one, I guess it is ok.
On the other circumstances I agree with previous comments.
So far, I have only had two such cases, that is, a suggestion by reviews (in referee's report(s)) to extend the list of references in my paper. In both cases, I corrected all the requested (mostly minor) corrections required by reviewers, but I left the list of references as in the initial (submitted) version of my paper. Subsequently, the paper was accepted for publication in this revised form. I would always do it except if I would have judged that the proposed extension of reference(s) by review(s) (in referee's report(s)) were relevant (essential) to my submitted paper.
I agree with Romeo Meštrović . Sometimes the suggestion may be reasonable and the reviewer's work is relevant. Then, the author should include the new references. However, if this is not the case, the author should be free not to include them. Then, the ethics of the reviewer will be revealed depending on his/her reaction to this.
It depends entirely on relevance, and whether the reviewing is double blind.
Michael John McAleer Antonio M. Oller-Marcén Romeo Meštrović
Dear Respected colleges
Thanks for your valuable comments.
If it is relevant to a particular topic and really necessary then only we may consider to add, otherwise we may not add those and explain our view to the editor.
When one claims one's work is the first of such, yet there are previous ones, such should be referred to earlier work even if it is the reviewer's. Some can also use the reviewer's or other people's material without referencing them, (plagiarism) and in such the writer must be made to refer to such. A reviewer should not advertise self but when there is an intention not to acknowledge what is on the ground, such must be brought out.
Obianuju P. Umeji
Depends on relevance, and how many reviewer self citations are suggested.
I were a reviewer I would not advise our paper to be cited unless it is extremely relevant to the issue at hand. However, I came across the similar situation where reviewers suggested me use the whole list of publications after the second revision. I accept this positively and incorporated these publications in the paper. This inclusion, I guess, slightly improved the write-up.
It is not appropriate when the references are out of place to the work. Reviewers should not make it compulsory for authors to cite their works.
If the suggested papers are related to the work, you may think in it. It they are far, just ignore the citation.
Depends entirely on relevance, and how many self references are suggested.
This behavior is incorrect and does not indicate scientific honesty. It is sometimes imposed by publishing houses of magazines and not just by reviewer.
Actually , not problem if the references relevant with study but if the references far from study its really unethical
it's not a sober scientific method.
it's better to leave the choice for the author.
It can depend on whether the suggestion is negotiable or non-negotiable.
Negotiable means that the suggestion is a guide rather than a directive or command.
Non-negotiable means the suggestion is not a request.
Those are mostly none reputable journals or not belong to well known publishers
only one citation from previous work, just to inform editors this team had a previous history in this topic and it is not the first time for this type of work and they respect this journal.
It would be irresponsible for reviewers not to mention essential references that might have been missed, including their own work.
"BIAS" knows no boundary; it cuts across all agents involved in reviewing and publishing processes. The one in this debate is one in rare occurrences demanding scientific debate. I have read an instruction of a journal which even says "you must at least cite papers published in the current journal", you can imagine this, as well. In another prism ball, I think if the reviewer's suggestion is warranted, it should be a kind of referring the authors to a paper for further reading (about so-so-so aspect) and brace up; not necessarily mandating his paper to be referenced. In conclusion, it all depends on the authors' quality of data to align with the reviewer's suggestion. In a case where the authors are bold and proud of their work, no need to bend their way, they should simply write the Editor-in-Chief that a case of unfair judgement has probably set in.
Hi,
THe author's reputation/brand/organization/institute's value matters when it comes to the reviewing process. Personally, for my initial set of articles, I was given revisions, such as including 6-7 publications of the reviewer. I did not want to make an issue out of it as I was desperately in need of articles for my research career, then. However, the journals do have provision for such reports to be made regarding such harassment by reviewers; You may do it if you don't mind the delay in the review process.
In my opinion, This cause the weakness of trust between reviewer and author.
Arcelan S. Sadiq
Even if the suggested resources are relevant to the research topic?
Reviewers at leading journals are typically aware as to what is essential, and far more so than some self-styled experts on this and related threads.
If a paper is deemed to be relevant by the reviewer, it can and should be mentioned.
This is why a reviewer is used.
Mentioning references is altogether different from insisting. that they be included.
This is where the Editor-in-Chief might step in.
I have experienced this a few times. However I think the most worrisome is when the suggestion is an abuse of privilege. Where a reviewer/editor suggest a few articles to improve the manuscript and the authors are convinced that such suggested manuscript can enrich the article, it should be considered. However, we also know that reviewers/editors may use this as a basis for accepting/rejecting a manuscript. I think a form of "blind suggestion of articles" should be created by journals for the review process. Authors must also be left with the choice of accepting/rejecting such suggestions.
If the reviewer happens to be the Editor-in-Chief, that is an altogether different proposition from a reviewer being subject to the independent adjudication of the Editor-in-Chief, and may well be an abuse of authority and privilege.
An abuse of peer reviewed process
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00335-7
A good reviewer should be impartial and give constructive criticism
It can be risky for the reviewer,if found to be unethical..
BTW just came across this news .. quite relatable to ensuing discussion..
This is a very genuine concern. First, we are humans and we are also scientists. At all times, we should be able to know and understand why we are doing anything. On merit or otherwise? while it is critical to take advantage of every available opportunity to improve the quality of our manuscripts, we should know where to draw the line. There are different shades of humanity and offer of help. what distinguish us as a respectable scientists and objective entity will now be the motives and the altruism of the offer. Even if at the consequence of the rejection of ones manuscript, authors should not be bound to take to suggestion of reference (s) if truly in the authors opinion, such will not add to the quality of the manuscript. What differentiates humans from other things is the rational thinking and decision capability. some people will apply to be Special Assistant to advise God if the Almighty Being is visible and accessible here on earth.
There is nothing wrong with a suggestion if it is relevant and helpful.
Dear Dr. Chia-Lin Chang
I agree with you.
Best regards
Dear dr. Olugbenga Adeniran Ogunwole
Very very useful Answer.
Best Regards
Dear dr. Djamel Ghernaout
I agree with you.
Best regards
Dear dr. Sule Akkoyunlu
I agree with you.
Best wishes.
If a reviewer is an expert in the topic of the paper under review, it would seem to be reasonable as a suggestion, but not as a directive.
I believe that when a suggestion is made, it will help improve the research, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. This should enable the researcher improve the concept thus making it attractive for readers. Mohammad Mehdizadeh Michael John McAleer Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed Chia-Lin Chang
Dear Mohammad Mehdizadeh
Good Morning!!!
The first thing that comes to my mind relates to that most journals do not disclose the names of reviewers while sending the MS for revision. And, the second, if it is, then it is largely unethical, and it shows competing interest at some level. However, if the reference of the suggested article (which might belong to the reviewer) is original and indispensable, the authors should incorporate it.
Thank you
Arbind
Hi,
It seems to me as unethical request. Citations should be relevant to the paper written, and a suggestion of this kind should be OK only if the reviewer think that the citation he suggests is a central point in the reviewed paper, and should not be missed.
If it is managed ethically there is nothing wrong, but if someone seeks some favoritism it is unethical.
Hi,
This could be justified only if the citation is relevant to your work, and for some reason it escaped your attention. If it is not relevant, then it is unethical.
Well, Michael John McAleer , sometimes in this context it is difficult to tell whether a suggestion is a request. After all, the referee is in a position of strength since he can influence on the acceptance of your paper.
A request is, in effect, a requirement for a possible positive review on the paper.
A suggestion is food for thought.
I always do what works for me, and do not consider whether the reviewer will like my response.
There are many other journals if the outcome is not positive.
Might be, but some researchers (coming from some countries, or at the beginning of their careers) may be in a not so comfortable position as yours, being already tenured and without much funding restrictions, etc.
My attitude has not changed from the time I was an untenured lecturer.
There are many issues that are more important than pleasing reviewers, including professional integrity.
Your comment about the lack of funding restrictions certainly does not apply to all tenured academics.
It is good to know and I agree. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world is so empowered.
And also unfortunately, I am well aware that tenure don't always come with funding.
Yeah, lots of things happen especially when academic promotions are based on the metrics of the individuals. They would go for every possible way in order to improve their Research metrics.
If the reviewer suspects his work has been drawn from but nor cited, I see no reason for not calling the author to attention. But if it is just to advertise the author though his work may not even be relevant to the study, then it is unethical. The author should not mind the reviewer. It is also a matter of conscience.
Obianuju P. Umeji
I beleive, the reviewer should be not recommed his/her articles to others authors. Regarding, those recommend thier work to other auther, this is unethical behaviour.
As others have variously pointed out, this practice raises ethical questions and should be discouraged. I would add that there may be excerptions. An example is where the work(s) in view is widely considered seminal and a departure point for research in the field.
If the reviewer demands citation of completely unnecessary references into a manuscript, this is breaking of scientific ethics. There is no doubt about that. The end of the story.
It depends entirely on relevance and how many suggested references.
You already pointed out 'unnecessary', so why should an author bring in unnecessary items into his/her work? Because it's from a reviewer or what?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts