Timeline for When (if ever) disclose your identity as a reviewer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2017 at 2:02 | comment | added | Patrick B. | Pardon a question from someone in a different field: why didn't the reviewer turn down the invitation to review and say they had a conflict of interest when they saw the abstract? Was it not clear from the abstract that there was substantial overlap? Or is that not how invitations to review work in math? | |
| May 31, 2012 at 20:38 | comment | added | user9072 | In a slightly different direction personally I find the idea to return the paper (with a factual explanation of the situation or just so, btw) and then to pretend towards the author one just happened to have found the paper a bit odd. Since, here, one tries to get some advantage out of knowing the paper because one was (asked to be) the referee and does not even make this explicit. Or is the idea that one then says one would have been the referee. But then this seems to me like disclosing referees identity. As evidently if one would write a joint paper one would not stay referee either way. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 20:28 | comment | added | user9072 | @Chris Godsil: what would in your opinion be the correct way to proceed if the situation would be slightly different in that the referee submitted their work slightly before the person whose overlapping paper they are now refereeing [and assume neither is available]? Pretend their own work does not exist? Reject on the grounds the result is overlaps with existing work? Neither of theses extremes seems particularly good to me. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 19:46 | comment | added | Vidit Nanda | As much as I adore the arXiv, it is downright silly to start hunting for online preprints of each paper you are reviewing. And what's worse, often the arXiv version is not the same as the draft that reaches you. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 16:06 | comment | added | Chris Godsil | I think the reviewer here has acted wrongly. If your work was available elsewhere (on the arXiv say), they should return your paper to the editor and contact you directly. If your work was not available then they are unlucky, and should just suck it up. One defence for a reviewer would be be to adopt a policy that you only referee papers that are posted on the arXiv. | |
| May 31, 2012 at 4:30 | history | answered | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |