I had an article recently appear in a decent journal after an initial judgment of revise and resubmit. I just got an email from a graduate student at another department asking a few questions about the article. In the back and forth, it was revealed that the student had read the essay as it was originally submitted, because his professor had assigned it in a graduate seminar last year. In case you didn't get that: Professor X was asked by Journal J to review a set-for-blind-review essay that I had submitted; X agreed and then assigned the submitted essay to his seminar. This is wrong, right?Yeah, I'd say so.
Monday, November 2, 2009
This is Wrong, Right?
A reader writes with a query:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Quite a lot wrong... If they couldn't wait till it was published - they should at least ask permission from the author - once the review process was over - but very shady behaviour indeed...
I am shocked
Shocking, yes . . . but a bit flattering too, perhaps?
To avoid any such impropriety involving my own work, I hereby give permission to all referees who blindly review my journal submissions to assign them in any graduate seminars they might be teaching.
Here's an even better story: I submitted a paper to an OK blind-reviewed journal in 2007, got an R&R on it with some advice I wasn't keen on taking, and withdrew it from the journal thinking I'd rewrite it and send it elsewhere. A moderately well-known philosopher ("X") came up to me at the APA and said that he had refereed the paper (he must have googled the title, which was similar to a conference talk I'd given). What I didn't know was that he'd also given it to a graduate student, who plagiarized it very heavily and sent the result to another journal. Fortunately at this point word got back to me, and let's just say that journal was pretty safe from publishing that particular article. Anyway, I emailed X about the issue, and got back a little "mea culpa" about having shared the MS without getting my permission, and a feeble suggestion that the student probably should have *cited* my paper. There was a rumour that the grad student had submitted the paper to a conference, so I googled a few phrases from the paper to track down any such events. I got a google books hit on X's own 2008 book, which itself included about a paragraph almost verbatim from my MS. I emailed X about this and he responded that he had, oops, mixed up his notes on my paper, and his own notes on the book he was writing... . I'm much more accustomed to getting that line from borderline undergrads than from full professors at top-30 schools, but hey. I'd like to say that I have some satisfaction in seeing a bit of my work in print, but unfortunately it's embedded in this otherwise pretty awful book.
You think that the prof was possibly outsourcing his refereeing responsibilities? I sometimes get comments like:
* 'Oh, but what about the objections?' where no objections are offered or mentioned:
* 'Oh, you can give evidence/arguments for anything...'
* 'I suspect that these arguments from your opponents premises might beg the question in your favor because they are deductive or something...'
Maybe prof was hoping his grad students could do better. Shit, I wish someone's grad students was giving me better comments than the comments I've been getting lately.
Yeah, Anon 6:52 seems to have nailed the explanation: outsourcing the review notes. Prof probably got stuck, then figured that the grad students would have as good or better responses... and all that's to do then is write them down.
But now, I guess, I'm feeling puzzled. What, exactly, is wrong with this action? It's lazy business to be sure, but that doesn't seem to explain my reaction of professional disappointment here. And it isn't that prof shared the piece with someone else -- I've asked for some help in forming judgments (often with what exactly is wrong) about essays I've reviewed. And I don't think that's misconduct. If it is, it's news to me and to my colleagues. So what's wrong with sharing a piece you're reviewing with graduate students? I mean, I feel like it's wrong, but I can't put my finger on why.
Was Spiros harmed by this action? I suppose he would have been if the paper had been rejected -- there'd be a crop of graduate students out there who had helped deep six his essay, and if it ends up somewhere else, they'd know it was his. But is that the harm that offends us here? I'm not so sure.
David W seems to note that it may be something about the permissions one tacitly gives when submitting to a journal -- only appropriate reviewers will see the essay, and no more... That seems more plausible, but this rule seems bendable within reason. What if the prof shared the essay, instead, with one or two advanced graduate students from whom prof wanted some feedback? In that case, I'm not so scandalized. This case is different only by degree, which doesn't seem to give the same morally confident outcome. Any help here?
Krinos:
I don't know. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I think if a journal asks ME to review a paper, and I accept, then it is MY responsibility to read and review the paper.
Further, if I think the paper is so great as to be useful in a course, I can wait until it is published to use it. If I just think it is so fabulous that I cannot wait, then I can summarize the argument and tell my students that I picked it up form a paper I expect to see published, or I could ask the journal to ask the author for permission to use it.
Papers submitted to journals for review – and, hence, to reviewers – are not public property. They are the property of the author, at least until published and copyrighted by the publisher.
CTS,
Thanks for the direct response. The point's well taken that if an editor asks you for your report on an article, then if you accept, it's your responsibility to read and respond to the paper. But there's a difference between (a) a reviewer who collects responses from others and makes that her/his review and (b) one who has a good idea of what s/he wants to say and bounces the ideas off others before sending it back to the editor. I'm sure about the failure of the former, but I don't see anything wrong about the latter. It may be overstatement, but (here goes) if those actions yield a better and more helpful review, then isn't it a good thing to do that? Again, if the work is in the service of a substantive review, then I'm still puzzled about the harm done.
Again, I'm disappointed by the story. But I'm having a hard time putting a finger on what's wrong exactly with what happened. Spiros's friend's agreement with the editor was betrayed, yes. But there doesn't seem to be as large a difference between this action and those that are allowable.
Maybe the issue is not with the ethics of review, specifically, but with non-public material, as CTS notes at the end. In that case, it's a problem with using that as instructional material. This is correct, but I'm not satisfied with this as an explanation for what seems so wrong with the case.
Hi Krinos,
I think the problem I have with the situation has to do with this element in Spiros' original post: the student had read the essay as it was originally submitted, because his professor had assigned it in a graduate seminar last year.
Prof X, the reviewer, distributed not only an unpublished work without permission, but an anonymous unpublished work. Exactly how were the students in this course supposed to cite this paper? If there was merit to this paper, yet it was distributed without even the author's name, exactly what protects the author, who has taken the proper route in seeking publication, only to discover a covert dissemination of her/his work occurred during the review process?
And let me add that if a reviewer, chosen by an editor on account of expertise in an area, farms out anonymous papers to graduate students for assisting the review process, it would seem to me that the journal editor has every reason to know that this has happened. Whatever "learning experience" or "further insight" such a method of peer review might provide, the journal editor sought the reviewer's view and did not initially request the views of students studying with the reviewer. The author of the paper did not submit her/his paper for classroom use and evaluation, the journal editor did not forward the paper to the reviewer for use in a classroom.
"Test-driving" a paper with an audience that *someone else* has submitted for peer review and publication is not the responsibility of reviewers. That is why there are conferences at which an author presents work for critique.
I thought I’d chime in here given that I am a graduate student currently taking a course that deals entirely with unpublished material.
Here’s the situation. Professor X is editing a volume on topic Y. It so happens that our course is all about Y. So each week we are expected to read and evaluate a paper that is to be included in the volume. Now, I initially thought this was unusual, but I didn’t think it was too unusual. For all I know, Professor X might have permission to distribute the papers to us. And as far as I know, these papers aren’t under review, but have already been accepted or were solicited in the first place.
Now, what has caused me to question whether Professor X has permission from both the publisher and the contributors to distribute the papers is the fact that we seem to be getting early drafts of these papers. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, the syllabus has been modified a couple of times because Professor X still hasn’t received a paper from a contributor. Geez, don’t they know they are holding up a seminar! Second, some of the papers are still heavily marked up with comments.
What do others make of this? What is the likelihood that Professor X has the permission s/he needs to do this? Is Professor X just keeping us up to date with the latest and greatest? Or, is Professor X killing two birds with one stone by using class time to edit a volume? At this point, I really don’t know what to think of the situation.
One last point: though many of the papers are written by well-known philosophers, some are so poorly organized that they are irritating to read. The problems are obvious and I’m sure they will be fixed in later revisions. Because of this, I feel the situation is a disservice to students as well. I’d much rather read the final published version. And I think it's fair to say that the contributors would prefer that as well.
Hi 729,
Thanks for the clarification. Your response has helped clear up some of my confusions. So, if I get you right, the problem is twofold. First, that what was shared was an earlier and anonymous draft of the paper. Second, the paper was not submitted for classroom discussion, even if the discussion might help with better reviews. Agreed, and that seems enough (along with CTS's nice point that the paper was not public property). Thanks.
But now I'm troubled. Am I all wet in thinking that asking for input on a review from a colleague or advanced graduate student is not out of bounds? It happened a number of times in my graduate department, with people who were (or who later became) journal editors, no less. I picked up my habits from them, and now I wonder if that's wrong, too.
Krinos:
I think there is a difference between asking a colleague what s/he thinks about a claim or an argument in a paper one is reviewing and giving it to others -especially students - to read.
Perhaps advanced grad students might be engaged in a similar conversation, so long as it is made clear that this is someone's work.
Anon 3:16:
Just from what you have related, I think this sounds highly suspect from both editorial and pedagogical perspectives.
There is probably no entirely safe way you can gently inquire as to whether the authors have given permission for their work to be used by the professor in a class. If the answer is 'Yes,' the prof will be offended that you doubted it; if the answer is 'No,' ....well.
I can see using as yet unpublished papers - a few - in a course when one has permission from the authors. Building an entire course around whatever submissions one gets on a topic? Hmm.
Re CTS: In the US, Britain, and most countries in the developed world, the paper is copyrighted the moment it's written--it doesn't have to be published to be copyrighted.
Re the original post and Anon 1:34: I certainly hope you let the journal's editor know about the reviewer's questionable (and quite possibly unethical) actions.
Anon 3:24:
This is the legal rule in the U.S., as well - although it is always good to state that one's work is CP.
However, under our Supremely vague 'fair use' standards, someone might argue that a paper submitted for review can be used in a college course. I would like to think that no court would accept such a claim, but ….
Post a Comment