Manuscript Review Ethics

[Bede the Vulnerable]

I've never run into this situation before, and I'm not sure how to address it.  I've been asked by a U press to review a manuscript.  The problem:  It turns out that I know the manuscript's author very well, and I consider him to be a good "professional friend."  I'm thus thinking that I should say no to the press, given that one can't trust my objectivity.  But I thought I'd run it by y'all before responding.  Any wisdom to impart?  Many thanks!

[fast_and_bulbous]

Just decline saying conflict of interest, if there is doubt in your mind that you can remain objective.

I once gave a brutal review to a paper a good collaborator of mine (and top name in the field) was on. It was weird, but necessary.

[ab_grp]

I agree that if you have a self-perceived conflict of interest (or one that would be perceived by others), you should probably decline, or at least explain and let the AE decide.  I regularly have to review my professional friends' papers and that is just the situation due to the smallness of the field.  I am as objective as one can be (I hope), trying to parse out the good and the bad.  Sometimes, they are bad.  Then, I am critical but try to provide concrete changes that I think would improve the manuscript.  I also point out parts I like but try to do so specifically rather than some general comment about the quality of the paper.  I have given several brutal reviews of collaborators' and top name authors' papers.  But, you also have to be ready to say when the paper is good (this is not an opposition to what f_and_b said but maybe an addendum).  As I said, I would try to be specific in each case.

[secundem_artem]

My dept head back in the day advised me that if you ever think you have a conflict of interest, you probably do.

[Bede the Vulnerable]

Many thanks to you  all.  My initial thought was to beg off.  I hate to say no to any request, which is one of my shortcomings in the profession.  But I'm afraid that I should not be judging a friend's work.

[AJ_Katz]

Your friend probably recommended you as a reviewer.

[spork]

Your friend probably recommended you as a reviewer.

Exactly. And why you should decline.

[. . .]

I hate to say no to any request

[. . .]

You need to learn this skill. You are not everyone's doormat but a professional whose time is extremely valuable. What is the dollar value of an hour of your time? Say "no" to any request that will not result in you getting paid that amount, whether by the requester or someone else.

[fast_and_bulbous]

Your friend probably recommended you as a reviewer.

Exactly. And why you should decline.

[. . .]

I hate to say no to any request

[. . .]

You need to learn this skill. You are not everyone's doormat but a professional whose time is extremely valuable. What is the dollar value of an hour of your time? Say "no" to any request that will not result in you getting paid that amount, whether by the requester or someone else.

Quoted for truth. It's something that all academics should learn. It is OK to decline a review. You can just say you're busy, even if you have another reason (such as the article is in a lousy journal and the abstract looks like it was written by an AI algorithm that went through four iterations of Google Translate). Editors always appreciate it when you suggest an alternate reviewer - if you want to feel less guilty about declining, do that!

[Bede the Vulnerable]

Thanks all for the advice on the review, and especially on the importance of saying "no."  I did, indeed, say no to this one.

So that's a start!

[apostrophe]

I'm late to the thread but have different advice should the situation come up again. Keep in mind that a lot of people end up reviewing papers of friends, former collaborators, and rivals. You probably can have a little more faith in yourself.

Tell the acquisitions editor you know the person and see what s/he thinks. If you are one of a few qualified specialists in your field, your review will be valuable even if you're leaning toward generosity.

[secundem_artem]

A bit of a diversion from the original topic but this arrived in my mailbox this morning:

Dear professor Artem
How are you? Do you remember me? You are the academic editor of my paper (title of article). After a couple of months I finished a paper title on "Title of another article" this is my short title. Almost I finished the paper. I need to work with you. I want to consider you as an author(second author).If you are volunteer I am ready to share the full document.

Author
Thanking you

I am inclined to turn this down, in part because I don't care much about his topic, but in reality, I think I have some kind of conflict here, I just don't know what it is.  I suspect he is thinking that if one of the editors on his paper is also an author, it will just slide through review - but that's just a guess.  Any advice oh wise ones?  At the risk of sounding racially insensitive, I will point out the author is non-native English speaker and based in a developing country.  I'm not sure what the norms for ethical research and authorship are in his homeland.

[pigou]

I'm late to the thread but have different advice should the situation come up again. Keep in mind that a lot of people end up reviewing papers of friends, former collaborators, and rivals. You probably can have a little more faith in yourself.

I second that. The conflict of interest guidelines in my field are often pretty specific: you cannot referee a paper of one of your former PhD students. For some journals, you cannot have a coauthored publication with the author in the past N years.

But if you rule out everyone you've had a couple drinks with... there'd be nobody to review papers with actual domain expertise. The productivity gains from just hanging out with people who work on similar things are just so large. At the same time, I don't think it's all that hard to be objective in these reviews. If anything, I think we tend to be too harsh anyway (at least in my field). So a slight amount of favoritism brings us to where we should be: give people credit for having tried to tackle a hard problem and understand that no paper is flawless. But make them fix all the things that can be fixed and be explicit about the shortcomings in the paper. Then, leave it up to the editor whether the paper merits publication or not.

I am inclined to turn this down, in part because I don't care much about his topic, but in reality, I think I have some kind of conflict here, I just don't know what it is.  I suspect he is thinking that if one of the editors on his paper is also an author, it will just slide through review - but that's just a guess.  Any advice oh wise ones?  At the risk of sounding racially insensitive, I will point out the author is non-native English speaker and based in a developing country.  I'm not sure what the norms for ethical research and authorship are in his homeland.

If you think you can improve the paper and the publication adds value to you, I wouldn't turn it down. Co-authorships work best when skills complement each other and if you can bring clarity to his argument and improve the paper, you deserve to be a co-author. If you think it's a waste of your time (which might be the bigger issue here), don't do it.

[saramago]

A bit of a diversion from the original topic but this arrived in my mailbox this morning:

Dear professor Artem
How are you? Do you remember me? You are the academic editor of my paper (title of article). After a couple of months I finished a paper title on "Title of another article" this is my short title. Almost I finished the paper. I need to work with you. I want to consider you as an author(second author).If you are volunteer I am ready to share the full document.

Author
Thanking you

I am inclined to turn this down, in part because I don't care much about his topic, but in reality, I think I have some kind of conflict here, I just don't know what it is.  I suspect he is thinking that if one of the editors on his paper is also an author, it will just slide through review - but that's just a guess.  Any advice oh wise ones?  At the risk of sounding racially insensitive, I will point out the author is non-native English speaker and based in a developing country.  I'm not sure what the norms for ethical research and authorship are in his homeland.

Unfortunately, both the form and content of this email suggest (in my view)  that the paper could be very so-so. Unless you absolutely need one more paper, I'd definitely stay away.

[Vkw10]

A bit of a diversion from the original topic but this arrived in my mailbox this morning:

Dear professor Artem
How are you? Do you remember me? You are the academic editor of my paper (title of article). After a couple of months I finished a paper title on "Title of another article" this is my short title. Almost I finished the paper. I need to work with you. I want to consider you as an author(second author).If you are volunteer I am ready to share the full document.

Author
Thanking you

I am inclined to turn this down, in part because I don't care much about his topic, but in reality, I think I have some kind of conflict here, I just don't know what it is.  I suspect he is thinking that if one of the editors on his paper is also an author, it will just slide through review - but that's just a guess.  Any advice oh wise ones?  At the risk of sounding racially insensitive, I will point out the author is non-native English speaker and based in a developing country.  I'm not sure what the norms for ethical research and authorship are in his homeland.

Unfortunately, both the form and content of this email suggest (in my view)  that the paper could be very so-so. Unless you absolutely need one more paper, I'd definitely stay away.

I had a very bad experience when I responded to a similar email many years ago. I foolishly agreed, invested substantial time and energy, and eventually asked him to remove my name from paper after many rounds of having every suggestion to improve content rejected. Seems he wanted someone to edit English grammar, not a co-author. 

My policy now is to refuse offers to co-author papers in progress unless I've worked with person before. For example, a few years ago, I agreed to co-author a work in progress with a former colleague and her graduate student, when former colleague was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. That worked out well, as the three of us had a frank discussion to set mutual expectations and most of the work in progress was up to former colleague's usual high standards.

[Bede the Vulnerable]

Again, thanks for the advice. 

My concern is primarily that I am so close to the MS's author that I could foresee no circumstance whatsoever under which I would recommend against publication.  (This is a book MS, submitted to a top series, FWIW.)  My thought was that this violates the basic premise of peer review.

Fortunately, my friend is a chaired professor with eight books to him name.  So my decision isn't make-or-break for his career.