Reviewing Paper at Gunpoint

[Cybergeek]

Have anyone "forced" to review a paper by some Top Gun? I did. I was "invited" to review by an AE (a big name dude) who was handling his former PhD student's paper. I knew it because the authors placed their names in the manuscript. Since we are in a small community focusing on a very specialized research area, I was forced to do the review in their favors. If I didn't know the authors of this manuscript, I would have rejected this paper. The authors (the first author especially) played it smart. All the reviewers recommended "major revision"!

The journal ranks quite high in my field. It has around 8% acceptance. Though it is not considered one of the top notch journals, it still garners enough respect from the research community. I know I should have rejected the paper, but I am only a small potato in my field. I can't afford to rub people the wrong way.

[mamselle]

Are you saying it wasn't a blind review? (i.e., they would know you were the reviewer?)

M.

[quasihumanist]

Are you saying it wasn't a blind review? (i.e., they would know you were the reviewer?)

M.

M. - The point is that the *handling editor* has a conflict of interest.  Surely the review isn't blind to them.

OP - I once reviewed a paper where, based on exchanges with editors after the fact, I concluded there was nothing I could have written that would have convinced them to accept the paper.  (No conflicts of interest involved - the journal just isn't interested in publishing in my subfield even though it's within their stated scope.)  That was definitely a waste of my time, and I'm not reviewing for that journal ever again.

The truth is that journal editors accept whatever they want to accept, and reviewers only give them recommendations.

[mamselle]

Ah, got it

Thanks.

M.

[Cybergeek]

Are you saying it wasn't a blind review? (i.e., they would know you were the reviewer?)

M.

M. - The point is that the *handling editor* has a conflict of interest.  Surely the review isn't blind to them.

OP - I once reviewed a paper where, based on exchanges with editors after the fact, I concluded there was nothing I could have written that would have convinced them to accept the paper.  (No conflicts of interest involved - the journal just isn't interested in publishing in my subfield even though it's within their stated scope.)  That was definitely a waste of my time, and I'm not reviewing for that journal ever again.

The truth is that journal editors accept whatever they want to accept, and reviewers only give them recommendations.

True. Publishing is a very political process.

[fizzycist]

This sounds like a really shitty situation, and I'm sorry you had to go through it. But I would never have accepted in the first place. We are in the middle of a gory pandemic--you couldn't think of any legitimate-sounding excuses to get out of this?

[Cybergeek]

This sounds like a really shitty situation, and I'm sorry you had to go through it. But I would never have accepted in the first place. We are in the middle of a gory pandemic--you couldn't think of any legitimate-sounding excuses to get out of this?

I didn't know the authors behind the manuscript when I agreed to review. But once I read the manuscript, the authors' names were presented in the cover page. I had no choice but to review the paper.

[Ruralguy]

If one of the authors was one of the people who urged me to do the review, then I would have definitely backed out on COI, noting the incident.

[Cybergeek]

If one of the authors was one of the people who urged me to do the review, then I would have definitely backed out on COI, noting the incident.

The authors did not ask me to review. But they played it smart. They put their names in the cover page!

[Cheerful]

The truth is that journal editors accept whatever they want to accept, and reviewers only give them recommendations.

+1 

But once I read the manuscript, the authors' names were presented in the cover page. I had no choice but to review the paper.

Dramatic title to this thread.  Please use this situation as a learning experience.  You always have choices on reviewing a paper, especially since reviewers aren't usually compensated for doing reviews.  The situation you've described sounds possibly unethical, unless this journal regularly reveals author names to reviewers.

Next time you are uncomfortable with a situation, listen to that feeling and act accordingly.  You could have let the editor know that you couldn't complete the review.  "I'm sorry I'm unable to submit a review for this manuscript.  Author names are on the ms.  Thus, I'm not comfortable proceeding.  I'm sure you understand my concerns."  Depending on the situation, you could add: "Please keep me in mind for a future manuscript."

You always have choices to say "no" in academe, hold fast to your own values.

Ruralguy, I think the first author is the journal editor's PhD student.

[Hegemony]

I agree with Cheerful.

[youllneverwalkalone]

If I didn't know the authors of this manuscript, I would have rejected this paper.

That's exactly what you should have done. Alternatively, you should have recused yourself from reviewing like Cheerful suggests.

You may or may not be right about the perceived consequences but clearly your fear of "rubbing the editor the wrong way" has created a COI that prevented you from performing your review correctly.

I wonder whether much of the "pressure" may be self-imposed, from feeling forced to review in the first place, to feeling that you need to accomodate the paper. As an editor, I can tell you the response/acceptance rate for reviewers is generally pretty low, so declining to review a paper is much more common than accepting the invitation.

Please stick to your guns next time and don't do anything you feel uncomfortable with.

[Ruralguy]

OK, it wasn't the AE on the paper, but it appears as if his student was. That AE should not have handled the paper.
Maybe you are too junior to feel like you can be honest, but I'd say "I saw that a name on the paper was a student of the AE who asked me to review. Therefore, due to a clear COI in the pipeline, I can not be party to the publication of this paper."

[fizzycist]

This sounds like a really shitty situation, and I'm sorry you had to go through it. But I would never have accepted in the first place. We are in the middle of a gory pandemic--you couldn't think of any legitimate-sounding excuses to get out of this?

I didn't know the authors behind the manuscript when I agreed to review. But once I read the manuscript, the authors' names were presented in the cover page. I had no choice but to review the paper.

As long as you haven't submitted the review yet, you can always back out. You can just say sorry things got crazy and I just won't be able to do the review. Or you can be more up front like ruralguy, but I think it is ok to obfuscate if you are concerned about repercussions and/or are unsure if it really is COI.

As most who have been an editor for anything can tell you: backing out after initially agreeing happens all the time and is a little annoying but not likely to be taken personally.

[Ruralguy]

Stating the COI isn't accusing anyone of anything (though they may feel that way). Its just stating that a COI exists.