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?
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.
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.
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
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.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude