- Case
Should we have had author consent for a randomised controlled trial of a peer review?
…Conclusion A notice should be added to the Instructions to Authors, to the effect that from time to time their papers may be used in trials of peer review and that this may slightly delay the processing time. In addition, the letter acknowledging receipt of the article might also contain notice (but with a light touch). In both cases, the authors can be given the opportunity to opt out.… - Case
Disagreement between a reviewer and an author
We sent a paper to a reviewer, who suggested that we should reject the paper, principally because he thought it “virtually identical to a paper in press by the same authors”. We rejected the paper with these comments. The author came back to us saying that he did not believe that he had had a fair review of his paper because, he thought, the reviewer had a conflict of interest. He wrote:… - Case
The reviewer writes comments that he doesn’t want the author to see
A reviewer has written to complain that a review he sent to us on which he wrote “In confidence—not for transmission to author” was transmitted in part to the author. He had made some rather derogatory remarks which had been edited out by the editor before he had sent back the comments to the author. The review that remained was critical but unremarkable. (1) Is it acceptable for… - Case
An author plagiarising the work of the reviewer?
…co-authors (including the reviewer himself). The manuscript is similar to others—one published with the reviewer’s name but without his consent The author is taking credit for work done by others—most notably the reviewer The author has refuted many, if not all, of the allegations What should the editor do now? He has invited advice from the university who awarded the PhD, but is… - Case
The double review
An author submitted a review to journal A in February 1997. It was accepted for publication in November, after peer review. The same author submitted a review on a similar topic—sufficiently similar that there was substantial overlap of content—to journal B in September 1997. Journal B accepted it in January 1998, after peer review. Neither journal editor knew of the parallel paper. - Case
Rights of reviewers
…and subsequently accepted the revised paper without sending it back to the three reviewers. The reviewers, however, were sent a copy letter from the editor informing them that the revised manuscript had been accepted. The editor then received a letter from the clinical professor asking if he could have a copy of the accepted revision, or the page proofs. He also declared that his own group had been… - Case
Reviewer submitting for publication material that had been removed from a paper he had reviewed
The paper was sent to two reviewers and published after modification. Between acceptance and publication, some modelling that had been included in the original paper was removed. Some time after publication one of the people who had reviewed the study submitted a letter for publication that included this model. The original authors were rather surprised by this and they sent us a letter… - Case
The incomplete systematic review
…group and refer to the previous Cochrane review. _ Their findings could conflict with the Cochrane review, which could itself, of course, be flawed, but the authors should include all relevant studies if asked to resubmit a revised version, and to detail why any flawed studies had been excluded. _ Write a frank letter to the authors asking how their review differed from the Cochrane review, and to… - Case
Submission of a paper by a reviewer
An editor sent out a paper to three reviewers. One of them, who gave the paper a favourable review, enclosed a research letter on the same topic, with, in his view, a better study design. He told the editor that the author of the paper had encouraged him to submit it during a meeting they both attended. He added that he thought its inclusion would make a good complementary pair of papers. The… - Case
Allegation of reviewer malpractice
The Editor provided a signed declaration stating the journal’s practice of asking authors to suggest reviewer(s) who may or may not be used for that purpose. The Editor’s declaration stated that the reviewer in question was nominated by the authors and that no competing interest was declared by either the authors or the reviewer.… - Case
Co authors’ unwillingness to support retraction of a review
…papers), and E (review). The Journal C paper was reference 5 in the Journal A review. Dr X denied that he had “stolen” the figure. However, after an “expert review” Journal C concluded that the figures were the same and the journal’s editors retracted Dr X’s paper. Dr X has since started legal proceedings against one of the editors of Journal C. Professor W is pushing for a complete retraction of the… - Case
Dispute between authors and a reviewer
…the authors should consider an appropriate acknowledgement with the agreement of the unit where the scans had been carried out. The authors agreed to this, bur the reviewer would not agree until he had seen the final version of the paper. The manuscript was forwarded to the reviewer, who was no longer the official reviewer for the paper, because of the conflict of interest. He revealed his identity… - Case
Plagiarism in a review article
…not convinced that the extent of the plagiarism is as serious as the peer reviewer was suggesting. Some sentences in the review manuscript were similar to the teaching syllabus, as was the structure of the review, but as far as the editor could see, large chunks of the text had not been copied, as claimed by the reviewer. - Should the editor inform the authors’ institution of the allegations? The… - Case
Using annual reviews to massage the impact factor
The editor in chief of Journal A is also on the editorial board of Journal B. Journal B publishes “annual reviews” that purport to describe recent advances in the field, but only do this by discussing and citing their own content. The editor in chief of Journal A now wants to have “annual reviews” in his journal to help increase the impact factor. In your experience,… - Case
Reviewer/author conflict of interest
… The reviewer’s conduct does seem to be malicious and perhaps the manuscript should be given to a second reviewer. The reviewer should have declared his conflict of interest. Does the covering letter sent to reviewers ask them to declare if they are working on something similar? Decide on whether or not to publish the first… - Case
Article sent to reviewer by mistake
…had already been through peer review. In addition, they explained why they disagreed with reviewer A's concerns. However, reviewer A would have the option of writing a letter based on the published version, to which the authors could then respond. Reviewer A has re-iterated their concerns and expressed an intention to write such a letter. For discussion: How should… - Case
Ethics, institutional review and studies from private practice
…the private clinic is not affiliated to a university and because the study was merely a retrospective chart review. The five authors on the paper are all affiliated with universities with ethics committees. We also noted that the owner/director of the private clinic is not listed as an author. We have also found that on the clinic’s website there is a reference to a “research study” regarding… - Case
Possible breach of confidentiality by a reviewer
…!supportLists]-->· offer not to send any future submissions from these authors to this reviewer · contact the reviewer to explain the accusation. The reviewer was wholly apologetic that there had been any misunderstanding and assured us that s/he takes the confidentiality of the review process very… - Case
Author approval for response to mini-reviews
We publish mini-reviews of important articles from the medical literature. In order to give the authors of reviewed articles a chance to respond to the review, we have now started to contact the corresponding author once a review of their article has been published on our website. If an author responds, we wish to publish their comments underneath the review. Do we need to get formal… - Case
Plagiarism in a systematic review
…specific aspect of the previously published review, but the format is identical and large portions of the text are either directly copied or only slightly modified from that review. The authors refer to the previous review in their introduction but do not attribute any of the copied material to it. There is no overlap in authorship between the two reviews. Even if…