Is Suggesting a Friend as a Potential Reviewer a Conflict of Interest
How often have you had that thought when faced with a critical review on one of your papers? I'd take a chance a estimate that it'southward more than once based on the number of times I have heard it said to me. Sometimes it might fifty-fifty exist true, but the vast majority of the time I don't think it is. Despite my underlying organized religion in reviewers' motives, I do capeesh that conflicts of interest are a serious topic and 1 that we need to be careful near. As editors, we e'er want papers to exist reviewed fairly and considerately, and any conflict that could detract from that is plainly something that we aim to avoid. As a basic guide, a conflict of involvement is anything that could affect either the objectivity of the process or the appearance of objectivity. It's important to remember that conflicts are not e'er negative—they can influence the process in a positive management also, and both possibilities are important to take into account. Just how can we make sure we practice that? How tin nosotros, as editors, find out about and avert reviewer conflicts when they practise exist? When we're choosing reviewers, in that location are some basic strategies that we use to minimize conflict, including any data nosotros already accept most existing projects, relationships, or connections that might influence the review process in either management. We likewise give authors the opportunity to exclude up to three potential reviewers who they believe could take a conflict, and we respect those exclusions. But nosotros apparently don't know everything near what everybody is doing, so we as well rely on reviewers to highlight when conflicts or potential conflicts exist and to recuse themselves if there is an result. Authors tin help as well by non suggesting their collaborators or people they take close relationships with every bit reviewers for their paper. To encourage reviewers to recollect about this issue, we specifically inquire them in the invitation letter to let united states of america know if they have a conflict that could affect the impartiality of the review process, and nosotros too highlight this topic in our online reviewer guidelines. My overwhelming impression is that reviewers are very conscientious about this issue and contact us immediately if they have a business concern. Unremarkably if an issue comes upwards, nosotros err on the side of caution and look for someone else. Sometimes though, it seems as though there isn't actually a problem, and we keep with the review process. There are several dissimilar reasons why a reviewer tin have a conflict. Here'southward a listing of some of the most mutual: If a reviewer has a closely related project going on in the lab equally the paper being submitted, even if it is quite far from the writing up stage, this is a conflict that means they should decline to review the paper. I promise the reasons hither are obvious and don't need an explanation. It'southward really just common sense. If the reviewer is collaborating with the authors of the paper on a topically related project (or shares a grant with them), that usually constitutes a conflict that would preclude participating in the review process. This information is commonly public and most of the fourth dimension editors will discover this blazon of disharmonize and avert information technology on our own. Occasionally though, we either make a mistake or don't realize that someone has moved or has a joint date, and in that state of affairs, we appreciate having it pointed out. It's unremarkably clear from publication records that the author of a newspaper was a recent mentor or mentee of a potential reviewer, but sometimes information technology's not (or we miss it, especially if one person has changed fields). Every bit a ball park, I'd estimate that a five-year period of independence is plenty separation to allow objective review, but that depends on how close the overall relationship was during the intervening time. These can be, too, and while most of the time, they're already taken into account by exclusions, sometimes they're a reason to pass up even if not specifically highlighted. These happen in scientific discipline and are not always obvious to an unsuspecting editor, just they are a good reason two people shouldn't review each other's papers. If a reviewer has stiff views on a topic where there is disagreement in the field, information technology could cloud their power to give an objective review on a paper that addresses it. If the topic of the paper is straight relevant to an surface area where the reviewer has a financial interest (for example, a share in a company working on a similar projection), and so this would also be a reason to decline the review request. Information technology'south also important to think about concerns that practise Non constitute a disharmonize. The most common 1 I come across is someone we enquire to review a paper who has already done so for another journal and feels they have a conflict in reviewing for the states. I don't agree. I'm request this reviewer considering I remember their input about the paper would be valuable, and it's no less valuable just considering some other journal asked them for information technology starting time. I realize that the prospect of reviewing the same paper twice may not exist highly-seasoned, merely if it hasn't inverse much, then from my perspective, information technology's fine to basically re-use the previous review. I as well sympathize the "double jeopardy" viewpoint, but if in that location are substantial issues with a paper that an expert picks upward on, then I would argue that they should be addressed before publication anywhere, including with u.s.a.. The reviewing burden on the community is already very loftier, and insisting on a new reviewer in this type of situation only makes it worse. At this point you may also be thinking "OK and then what do you do if yous remember there is a conflict in the review process?" We take quite a lot of options. We can cantankerous-consult among the reviewers, and we often do that over differences of stance, even when in that location is no proposition of whatsoever kind of conflict. Nosotros can also seek some other independent opinion from someone with related expertise. If a conflict arises during the class of the review procedure (for example, a new collaboration, a new project, or an institutional motility), nosotros can supercede the affected reviewer with someone new. We do go on an center out and will make a modify if we think it's needed. We too take notation if we come across a situation where a reviewer should've highlighted a conflict and didn't do so—for both that newspaper and future reference. Layered on height of all of that, we're besides applying our own editorial judgment, informed by the reviewers' comments and recommendations, to interpret all of the input we have to come to the best decision we can. And so, the side by side time you lot find yourself thinking that your reviewer simply MUST have a disharmonize otherwise he/she could not possibly have the opinion that you see, comport in heed that there are quite a few checks and balances designed to avoid that situation. Read the comments again with an objective eye. Maybe you'll change your mind. 
1. Working on a similar project
ii. Current collaboration or shared funding
iii. Being at the same establishment
4. Recent colleagues
5. Negative personal relationship
6. Other close personal human relationship
vii. Strong opinion in a contentious area
8. Financial involvement
Posted by
Deborah is the Vice President of Editorial at Prison cell Press and leads the Cell Press editorial team. A scientist by training, she worked for many years as a journal editor earlier taking on this broader part. She's excited by finding opportunities to improve the fashion publishers support science and the people working in it.
Filed to Peer review, From the editors, Get published
Source: http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/how-cell-press-deals-with-reviewer-conflict-of-interest