Timeline for Is it ethical to re-submit a manuscript without addressing comments from a particular reviewer while asking the editor to exclude them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2023 at 14:27 | history | edited | Especially Lime | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Quoted the question, to clarify precisely what I am answering.
|
| Jul 13, 2023 at 8:39 | comment | added | Especially Lime | @kricheli If the reviewer is incorrect, and OP tells the editor "we think this person has previously reviewed this paper, making incorrect comments", then the editor is not being misled. And I would certainly give the benefit of the doubt here if OP merely believes the reviewer is incorrect. But OP is instead proposing to say that this person might not review fairly, which is not the same thing at all. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 8:29 | comment | added | kricheli | Do you not give the benefit of the doubt? If the reviewer is indeed incorrect, you are not misleading an editor and not circumventing normal peer review. Saying that the reviewer would be unfair, well, I'd agree that you'd have to be careful about that/have good reasons. Depends perhaps on the specifics of the arguments and the reviewer's positions etc. and we don't know that. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 8:23 | comment | added | Especially Lime | If OP was going to be as honest with the new editor as they have been with us, there would be no problem (but of course the editor would then think "I really want to know what this supposed fundamental flaw is"). Of course, OP doesn't have to say anything to the new editor, but if they do want to ask for this person not to be a reviewer, they should be honest about why. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 8:15 | comment | added | Especially Lime | @kricheli I don't see how it is a stretch. The real stretch is turning "I don't want you to see what this reviewer is likely to say" into "this reviewer is likely to be unfair". | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 6:29 | comment | added | kricheli | "What you are proposing is to mislead an editor in order to circumvent normal peer review and get your paper published despite appearing to have a fundamental flaw." That interpretation is quite a stretch. And your "proper course of action" sounds bad as a general advice. Not every reviewer comment should lead to a modification of your paper. Some reviewer comments are just unnecessary or wrong. Like, properly wrong. Thank god, or hopefully, this is rare. | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 11:24 | history | answered | Especially Lime | CC BY-SA 4.0 |