3 ms·

Here's a possible solution to this problem. I'm still workshopping the idea, so feedback is welcome. The review process must become more transparent. The revie

Here's a possible solution to this problem. I'm still workshopping the idea, so feedback is welcome. The review process must become more transparent. The reviewers and their assessment of the work must become public when the paper is accepted and published. This in itself will prevent some nefarious citation-begging. In addition, some guidelines could be mandated concerning citations to be added or removed. For example, for each reference you want the author to include, you must explain why it should be included. Not just "this has been done before" but "the work you describe is similar to the work done on p.4 of [new ref.] but differs in X,Y and Z and is still novel because of invention/method A,B,C. Therefore, you build on their work and should cite them." To the others in this thread: remember that peer review is often an iterative process and the authors and reviewers have multiple rounds of review in which the authors can choose not to implement some suggested changes, such as adding citations. This is often a small debate. The editor of the journal has the final say and can overrule the decisions of the reviewers (publish / reject) if there are good grounds to so. Also a small note: the reviewers are selected by the journal editors based on expertise. That means, especially for smaller fields, that many prominent papers are written by the reviewers simply because they are the experts. It is easy to conclude that this leads to bad behavior but it is often the case that there simply are no other papers available with such specific details. Of course, this is not an excuse for malicious actors which are also rampant.

kayaeb 7y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted I disagree on one point specifically though. Reviewers must remain anonymous. What if I harshly review / reject a crap work from the department head of some group at Harvard? then, in anger, I get blackballed by s/he and their friends, which could be the whole field in some cases?
diffeomorphism 7y ago
The reviewer is known to the editor, so you already have some accountability there. The reviewer should definitely NOT be known publicly for the same reason that reference letters are usually confidential. You are going to get sugarcoated, bland, self-censored reviews otherwise. > "the work you describe is similar to the work done on p.4 of [new ref.] but differs in X,Y and Z and is still novel because of invention/method A,B,C. Therefore, you build on their work and should cite them." That is your job! As a referee I will point out that: - This is similar to paper X, which you did not cite. You should give credit here. - You, not me, should argue why your work is new/better etc. and hence worth publishing. If you just write "we do the exact same stuff as in X", then I will assume this is not novel and not that you are lying and it is actually novel and very different from X.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  Points taken. Maybe the reviewers should be anonymous, but I still believe that making the reviews public after publication is a good thing (anonymized). > The reviewer is known to the editor, so you already have some accountability there. Yes. I think it is not enough though. > That is your job! Well, yes it is. But, assuming the author is acting in good faith, it is still possible to miss some references. You can kindly point out the references and ask for clarification as to why the material isn't cited. I may have gone too far by handing the arguments to the authors.

kayaeb 7y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted I disagree on one point specifically though. Reviewers must remain anonymous. What if I harshly review / reject a crap work from the department head of some group at Harvard? then, in anger, I get blackballed by s/he and their friends, which could be the whole field in some cases?

diffeomorphism 7y ago

The reviewer is known to the editor, so you already have some accountability there. The reviewer should definitely NOT be known publicly for the same reason that reference letters are usually confidential. You are going to get sugarcoated, bland, self-censored reviews otherwise. > "the work you describe is similar to the work done on p.4 of [new ref.] but differs in X,Y and Z and is still novel because of invention/method A,B,C. Therefore, you build on their work and should cite them." That is your job! As a referee I will point out that: - This is similar to paper X, which you did not cite. You should give credit here. - You, not me, should argue why your work is new/better etc. and hence worth publishing. If you just write "we do the exact same stuff as in X", then I will assume this is not novel and not that you are lying and it is actually novel and very different from X.

itcrowd 7y ago
Points taken. Maybe the reviewers should be anonymous, but I still believe that making the reviews public after publication is a good thing (anonymized). > The reviewer is known to the editor, so you already have some accountability there. Yes. I think it is not enough though. > That is your job! Well, yes it is. But, assuming the author is acting in good faith, it is still possible to miss some references. You can kindly point out the references and ask for clarification as to why the material isn't cited. I may have gone too far by handing the arguments to the authors.