Situation
Herbert Swanson submitted a manuscript to a leading peer-reviewed journal in sociology. He received a decision of “Revise and Resubmit” and the reviewers, along with the editor, provided over 10 pages of detailed commentary. In his revision, he draws heavily from these comments, including seeking out additional citations and bringing in ideas discussed by the reviewers. Upon re-submission, the piece is sent out to some of the same reviewers and a new reviewer. The reviewer who had seen the piece previously contacts the editor, claims that the author has not given proper credit to ideas and submits a complaint to COPE.
Questions
- Is the reviewer justified in taking such a position?
- What are the editor’s options?
- What is a likely COPE reaction?
Discussion
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.
