Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewersHow to respond to an editor's post-review comments suggesting major changes I'm not willing to make?What does the “re-review” mean?Unexpected long delay with paper review and no answer from editorsMy paper has been rejected again, what should I change?Reviewers want me to cite their barely related papersReferee wants me to do more experiments, but I already submitted these results to another journalEditor's comments differ from those of reviewersHow to deal with an unreasonable reviewer asking to cite irrelevant articles?Journal review failureRebuttal in a journal
Would a high gravity rocky planet be guaranteed to have an atmosphere?
Two monoidal structures and copowering
Is a stroke of luck acceptable after a series of unfavorable events?
What is the intuitive meaning of having a linear relationship between the logs of two variables?
I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?
How to safely derail a train during transit?
How do we know the LHC results are robust?
You cannot touch me, but I can touch you, who am I?
Roman Numeral Treatment of Suspensions
How do I find the solutions of the following equation?
Method to test if a number is a perfect power?
Large drywall patch supports
How does Loki do this?
What is paid subscription needed for in Mortal Kombat 11?
Tiptoe or tiphoof? Adjusting words to better fit fantasy races
Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?
How can we prove that any integral in the set of non-elementary integrals cannot be expressed in the form of elementary functions?
Is expanding the research of a group into machine learning as a PhD student risky?
Do sorcerers' Subtle Spells require a skill check to be unseen?
Proof of work - lottery approach
Where does the Z80 processor start executing from?
Why are there no referendums in the US?
How does it work when somebody invests in my business?
How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?
Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers
How to respond to an editor's post-review comments suggesting major changes I'm not willing to make?What does the “re-review” mean?Unexpected long delay with paper review and no answer from editorsMy paper has been rejected again, what should I change?Reviewers want me to cite their barely related papersReferee wants me to do more experiments, but I already submitted these results to another journalEditor's comments differ from those of reviewersHow to deal with an unreasonable reviewer asking to cite irrelevant articles?Journal review failureRebuttal in a journal
1) A journal article I submitted to a highly reutable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.
2) The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is a pro-forma and includes a line asking for any inappropiate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.
3) Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.
My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inapprpriate and reference it in our article - "throw them a bone."
I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.
Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?
I'm interested in other people's experiences.
publications citations peer-review ethics
add a comment |
1) A journal article I submitted to a highly reutable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.
2) The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is a pro-forma and includes a line asking for any inappropiate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.
3) Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.
My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inapprpriate and reference it in our article - "throw them a bone."
I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.
Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?
I'm interested in other people's experiences.
publications citations peer-review ethics
3
You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1) A journal article I submitted to a highly reutable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.
2) The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is a pro-forma and includes a line asking for any inappropiate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.
3) Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.
My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inapprpriate and reference it in our article - "throw them a bone."
I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.
Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?
I'm interested in other people's experiences.
publications citations peer-review ethics
1) A journal article I submitted to a highly reutable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.
2) The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is a pro-forma and includes a line asking for any inappropiate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.
3) Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.
My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inapprpriate and reference it in our article - "throw them a bone."
I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.
Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?
I'm interested in other people's experiences.
publications citations peer-review ethics
publications citations peer-review ethics
asked 2 hours ago
doctorerdoctorer
25728
25728
3
You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3
You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
2 hours ago
3
3
You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
2 hours ago
You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).
The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him to leave them out.
Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.
Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....
– doctorer
52 mins ago
add a comment |
If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.
So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.
A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).
2
As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
32 mins ago
Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case, is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.
– doctorer
30 mins ago
@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.
– Allure
1 min ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127171%2finappropriate-reference-requests-from-journal-reviewers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).
The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him to leave them out.
Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.
Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....
– doctorer
52 mins ago
add a comment |
Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).
The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him to leave them out.
Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.
Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....
– doctorer
52 mins ago
add a comment |
Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).
The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him to leave them out.
Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.
Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).
The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him to leave them out.
Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.
answered 1 hour ago
Michael SchmidtMichael Schmidt
863312
863312
Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....
– doctorer
52 mins ago
add a comment |
Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....
– doctorer
52 mins ago
Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....
– doctorer
52 mins ago
Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....
– doctorer
52 mins ago
add a comment |
If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.
So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.
A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).
2
As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
32 mins ago
Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case, is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.
– doctorer
30 mins ago
@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.
– Allure
1 min ago
add a comment |
If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.
So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.
A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).
2
As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
32 mins ago
Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case, is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.
– doctorer
30 mins ago
@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.
– Allure
1 min ago
add a comment |
If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.
So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.
A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).
If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.
So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.
A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).
answered 53 mins ago
AllureAllure
33.5k19101153
33.5k19101153
2
As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
32 mins ago
Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case, is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.
– doctorer
30 mins ago
@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.
– Allure
1 min ago
add a comment |
2
As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
32 mins ago
Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case, is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.
– doctorer
30 mins ago
@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.
– Allure
1 min ago
2
2
As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
32 mins ago
As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
32 mins ago
Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case, is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.
– doctorer
30 mins ago
Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case, is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.
– doctorer
30 mins ago
@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.
– Allure
1 min ago
@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.
– Allure
1 min ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127171%2finappropriate-reference-requests-from-journal-reviewers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
2 hours ago