This is a general scenario which has been observed in increasing numbers at our journal. We are finding that some reviewers provide a referee’s report which include a request to cite a number of papers, which on closer inspection are all authored by the referee.
We would like to hear whether Forum participants have any policies or procedures for reviewers who are clearly manipulating citation data by asking authors to cite a number of the reviewer’s own papers.
Questions for the Forum
- Should the referee’s report be discarded?
-
Should the referee be notified that the editor is aware of this citation manipulation?
-
Should it be reported to the publisher?
Reviewers not uncommonly recommend citations to their own work, and the editor’s response should depend on the wider context of the reviewer report and whether this is a repeated behaviour. In a small field or where an author has genuinely overlooked relevant contributions by the reviewer, it may be appropriate to suggest these references. It is also possible that the author has deliberately omitted references to a particular authority for personal or other reasons, or is engaged in some form of citation manipulation themselves. If the reviewer has only made one or two suggestions this is also less likely to raise a concern, even if they are all to their own work. In this case the editor can make a judgement on whether to pass the recommendations on to the author or how they frame the request to include the citations.
In other cases, the reviewer may be motivated by personal gain and if it looks like a repeated pattern may merit removing them from the reviewer database and notifying their institution. Another flag can be if the reviewer gives DOIs rather than full references in their suggestions as this can be a way to disguise the fact that they are referring to their own work. Ultimately, this behaviour could compromise the anonymity of the review process (if this is the journal’s practice) and should also be considered in this light.
The journal should take the issue up with the reviewer, but it is advisable to frame this as education; reviewers should be thinking beyond the scope of their own work in making recommendations to authors. The journal should also review their instructions for reviewers to ensure that they cover appropriate behaviour regarding suggestions for citations. Finally, they could consider a policy where reviewers agree to be named if they are making suggestions to cite their own work.
Ultimately it is up to the editor how they present reviewer requests to authors. They can, for example, recommend that they only include those which are relevant, or edit some of the requests out of the report altogether.
More guidance is available in the COPE discussion document on citation manipulation.