Timeline for Supervisor does not want to contact reviewer after publication
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23 at 13:14 | comment | added | thor9669 | @BryanKrause I got your point and your example was a clear one. Just want to comment on the last part. I would not have taken it personally if they had explained my "unethical behaviour" to me but that wasn't the case and that's why I posted here. They should have taken the time to answer appropriately instead of simply shutting me down. Anyway, thanks for your time | |
| Jan 18 at 17:01 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | @TasosPapastylianou "if you write a 'positive' review, this in itself does not in any way create a probability of being contacted" - It doesn't only because people do not do what OP is suggesting. Note the first sentence of this answer: we're thinking about a different world here as a thought experiment. I don't think ethics are always that black and white or so isolated; while an individual contact in a situation like this isn't causing a problem, it's important for the field as a whole to avoid it as a common practice otherwise these problems occur. | |
| Jan 18 at 16:58 | comment | added | Tasos Papastylianou | Not sure I follow the logic. If you provide a critical review and the author wishes to contact you through the editor, you simply refuse. So no problem there. Similarly, if you write a 'positive' review, this in itself does not in any way create a probability of being contacted. So if anything, the directionality in the ethical dilemma only exists if the reviewer makes the first move, which is not the case here. In this case, the reviewer wasn't simply positive, they also showed insight and deep interest. I don't think an author extending a collaboration offer in this case is unethical per se. | |
| Jan 17 at 22:32 | history | answered | Bryan Krause♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |