Situation
In submitting a paper to which Thomas Araujo is the editor, Professor Grace Ferrante requests that it not be sent to a particular person for review because the named person knows about the work and will correctly identify authorship. Since Ferrante believes that the named person disagrees with her professionally and dislikes her personally, she feels that the person will be unable to evaluate the paper objectively.
Questions
- What is the Araujo’s responsibility? Should she grant Ferrante’s request?
- What is Araujo’s responsibility, if any, to the named person who has been charged as unable to be objective?
- What is the Araujo’s responsibility to the journal she edits and to the sociological community?
Discussion
On the face of it, this case looks simple, but it harbors several ethical issues. The obvious issue is the author’s interest in removing her perceived antagonist as a potential reviewer. The easiest course of action is to use other reviewers. But in doing so, the principle of fairness may be violated. In obliging the author’s request, the editor is giving her the right to delimit her pool of potential reviewers, a right most authors do not have. Still another issue in the case is the un-documented charge the author makes. Should the editor insist on documentation by the author, and if forthcoming, give the alleged party the right of rebuttal before removing him or her from the reviewer pool? Furthermore, should the editor inform the author about his handling of her request other than to say that it was considered. Whatever decision is made affects the journal, and the editor should keep its integrity in mind in assigning reviewers.
