Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Academic Cheating
- Part II Academic Excuses and Fairness
- Part III Authorship and Credit
- Part IV Confidentiality’s Limits
- Part V Data Analysis, Reporting, and Sharing
- Part VI Designing Research
- Part VII Fabricating Data
- Part VIII Human Subjects
- Part IX Personnel Decisions
- Part X Reviewing and Editing
- 58 The Ethics of Repeat Reviewing of Journal Manuscripts
- 59 Bias in the Review Process
- 60 The Rind et al. Affair
- 61 Me, Myself, and a Third Party
- 62 Commentary to Part X
- Part XI Science for Hire and Conflict of Interest
- Epilogue Why Is Ethical Behavior Challenging?
- Index
61 - Me, Myself, and a Third Party
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Academic Cheating
- Part II Academic Excuses and Fairness
- Part III Authorship and Credit
- Part IV Confidentiality’s Limits
- Part V Data Analysis, Reporting, and Sharing
- Part VI Designing Research
- Part VII Fabricating Data
- Part VIII Human Subjects
- Part IX Personnel Decisions
- Part X Reviewing and Editing
- 58 The Ethics of Repeat Reviewing of Journal Manuscripts
- 59 Bias in the Review Process
- 60 The Rind et al. Affair
- 61 Me, Myself, and a Third Party
- 62 Commentary to Part X
- Part XI Science for Hire and Conflict of Interest
- Epilogue Why Is Ethical Behavior Challenging?
- Index
Summary
Background
Most scientific journals require that a manuscript submitted for publication not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Another tenet of editorial processing is that authors submit their paper as a confidential communication, which generally means the editor and reviewers may not disclose the content of the paper to a third party. But what if the third party is the editor himself?
This happened to me as an editor at journal X. I asked two experts to review a submitted manuscript; both suggested significant changes. The reviews were communicated to the authors, who were invited to prepare a revision. Subsequently, an author contacted me more than once to clarify specific aspects of a (presumed) revision. All fine so far. I anticipated seeing the revised paper shortly.
The manuscript reached me soon afterward, but not by the route I expected. It was accompanied by a request to review the paper for a different journal (call it Y).
Two questions immediately came to mind: (1) how to respond to the editor of journal Y and (2) what to do (if anything) about the submission still pending at journal X. The options for (2) raised the issue of whether I, as a potential reviewer for journal Y, could reveal receiving this paper to myself as editor of journal X (a third party from Y’s perspective).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain SciencesCase Studies and Commentaries, pp. 191 - 193Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015