In recent years, there has been considerable discussion about the ethical aspects of the manuscript review process. As we all know, the review process is one of the most important stages in scientific publishing. It is vital for ensuring the scientific soundness of submitted original research: a process that helps ensure novel ideas are presented and good research practices have been followed.
To avoid conflicts of interest and ensure unbiased criticism, various journals implement several types of review processes. These include single-blind, double-blind, open, and post-publication review, among others. The prevailing approaches are single-blind or double-blind review, where, in both cases, the authors do not know the reviewers’ identities – unless the latter reveal them indirectly by unethical means.
However, anonymized review does not guard against every threat to integrity in the review process. One concern is reviewers’ citation recommendations – especially when those recommendations serve the reviewer more than the manuscript.
You may have seen a meme on social media where there are three reviewers: Reviewer 1 – the normal one – who offers constructive criticism, as they should; Reviewer 2 – the unreasonably strict one – who recommends rejection; and Reviewer 3 – the sly one – who asks for citations to their own papers.
A joke? Not at all. Unfortunately, this is a real story that began some years ago and has now become a scourge in scientific publishing.
In an attempt to boost their image and prestige, some reviewers are asking authors to cite their own papers. If this is necessary, then of course they might ask for it – or at least make a general comment asking for better literature coverage.
I have also been asked in the past to add three to five citations in some cases. When this happens, I usually check them and, if the request is reasonable, I add them. If not, I decline, explaining my reasons.
However, for junior researchers who are under pressure to improve their CVs by publishing more papers, the decision to refuse suggested citations is a double-edged sword. They risk jeopardizing acceptance. On the other hand, by adding them, there is a “win-win” situation: the reviewers’ h-index is boosted, and the researchers’ number of published papers also increases. And thus, everyone is satisfied.
I was recently invited to review a manuscript for a subscription journal from a highly esteemed publishing company, which I did. As one of the reviewers, I was also invited to evaluate the revised version. While reading the authors’ responses to my comments, I noticed that another reviewer had asked for the addition of seven – yes, seven – references; not surprisingly, all were from one group.
When I noticed this malpractice, I checked whether the references were relevant. In fact, they were applications related to a certain concept. I won’t give more details for obvious reasons. The reviewer had asked the authors to include seven applications instead of reasonably advising them to cite the original work, which, however, was not from the reviewer’s group – nor mine. I brought this to the editor’s attention.
Fortunately, the authors were brave enough not to follow the suggestion and replied in a clever way. They altered the paragraph so that the reviewer could not insist on the initial request. After a few days, the manuscript was accepted.
However, what would have happened if the authors, in their effort to get their manuscript published, had accepted the request and added the seven references? In this case, all sides would have been satisfied – all but the ethical process and research integrity.
My question – a rhetorical one, of course – is: who is responsible for this bad practice? The reviewer, the editor, or both? Or perhaps the author(s), who, in order to get their manuscript published, would blindly accept the addition of irrelevant citations?
I believe the sequence ought to be as follows: first, the reviewer should be unbiased, or declare any conflict of interest in advance; second, the author should evaluate the suggested references, especially if they all come from the same group, and respond accordingly; and third, the editor, who makes the final decision, should check such recommendations in the comments. Otherwise, we risk allowing a quiet form of citation inflation to continue unchecked – one that has already, many times over, irrationally increased the citation numbers of certain scholars at the expense of publishing integrity.
Newsletters
Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
