This case has a number of complexities. The purpose of the peer-review
process is not only to judge the quality of submitted papers but, as
many editors express in their letters to potential reviewers, to assist
in the revision of a manuscript deemed to be sufficiently worthy of
revision. That said, part of the point of the review process is for the
author to explicitly take into account the commentary and suggestions
of the reviewer. However, there are also some standard practices and
limits that need to be taken into account. First, it is commonplace for
authors to acknowledge the contributions of anonymous reviewers and,
sometimes, to request that the editor insert a particular reviewer's
name if the point being cited is unique or critical to the author's
revision. The ASR, under the editorship of Paula England, has inserted
the names of all reviewers in the acknowledgments at the request of the
author. Second, many editors request that authors submit a detailed
letter accompanying the revision which indicates how they responded to
points of the reviewer, and particularly where they address particular
points. This is useful in editorial oversight not only of attention to
changes but also in seeing if proper credit is given. Third, even with
the best of intent, lifting paragraphs from reviews, verbatim, slides
into issues of appropriation of the intellectual property of others.
Here, in particular, even with sufficient rephrasing and reworking,
authors should cite the particular reviewer.
The editor has the option of notifying both the author and the reviewer
of any problems as he/she sees them, asking for correction. If the
editor perceives that the use of editorial material has been done in
bad faith, the editor has the option of also taking action with COPE,
particularly if the issue is not resolved among the parties. COPE is
likely to require that such action, among the involved parties, be
undertaken before they are likely to be proceed. If the author is
unaware of standard practice and has not been notified by the editor or
the reviewer and has not been given a chance to respond, COPE would
raise issues of due process.
