Situation
Tom Slotz is the editor of a peer-reviewed sociology journal. He receives a manuscript in the area of culture and race relations. He sends this manuscript out to a very well-known sociologist in this area. The review is returned in three weeks with a note to Tom saying: “Well, of course I like this work. The author is my student and I oversaw the dissertation on which this is based. However, I feel perfectly able to judge its flaws and strengths.”
Questions
- Was it unethical for the dissertation advisor to review this piece for Tom?
- What are Tom’s options in this case?
- How might the dissertation advisor have proceeded in this case?
Discussion
Given the position of the dissertation advisor on this particular piece, it was bad judgment for him/her to review the manuscript. It is surprising that the author did not mention the intellectual contributions of the advisor or others in the acknowledgments. This does not imply that mentors are forever banned from reviewing the work of their former students; however, the dissertation research is quite another issue. At minimum, the dissertation advisor has the obligation to inform the editor of his/her special relationship to the author before the piece is reviewed. Tom, at this point, has the option to discount the review and inform the dissertation advisor of his position on review.
