3 ms·
Which should be treated as misconduct. Folks who do this should be shunned by their peers and driven out of academia. It's exploitative and coercive.
by sgt101 2y ago
Which should be treated as misconduct.
Folks who do this should be shunned by their peers and driven out of academia. It's exploitative and coercive.
- EA-3167 2y agoUnfortunately people like that tend to run academia.
- sieste 2y agoNot as exploitative as the anonymous reviewer report that asked to add 15 additional papers to our lit review ... all by the same author.
- krull10 2y agoI’ve had that happen in notes from an editor telling me that in addition to addressing reviewer comments I should cite a whole bunch of their completely unrelated articles when submitting a revision. But I have also been a reviewer in a situation where a supposed broad review article for a preeminent journal completely ignores citing a massive amount of relevant prior work (except, conveniently, the authors’ own work, which in many cases was cited over more relevant and important earlier work), including a large number of my own articles.
- sgt101 2y agoI doubt it's any comfort but there are so many people who find this story and many like it to be disgraceful. The unfortunate thing is that they clearly aren't the people who run journals or conference committees.