I accepted a request to referee a mathematics paper (available as an arXiv preprint long before it was submitted), but haven't started to write a report yet. Before receiving the referee request I'd already worked on the preprint a little bit and been able to improve the main result somewhat which I thought wasn't good enough to be published anywhere or to tell anyone. When I accepted the referee request I had no intention of continuing to work on it and since then have spent time on other projects.

The issue is, after solving a problem unrelated to the paper in question, I suddenly realised that the method I used to solve the unrelated problem could be adapted to significantly advance the main result of the paper I'm reviewing, and would lead to publishable work.

Should I wait for the paper I'm reviewing to be published (I plan to recommend to accept it anyway) before making my improvements available?

  • What would be your reason for waiting? Commented Mar 11, 2023 at 3:59
  • 1
    @MoisheKohan I'm afraid it'd be unethical to publicising my improvements before the paper is accepted and published, even if it has an arXiv version. This situation never occurred to me before although I've refereed at least ten papers.
    – user160393
    Commented Mar 11, 2023 at 4:04
  • 6
    I do not see anything unethical here. You just state clearly that your paper was motivated by theirs. Commented Mar 11, 2023 at 4:09
  • 3
    Does this answer your question? Research motivated by referee assignment
    – Anyon
    Commented Mar 11, 2023 at 5:50
  • 1
    @Anyon my situation is different somewhat because of the substantial improvement I've got from an outside project.
    – user160393
    Commented Mar 11, 2023 at 6:04

1 Answer 1


Journals and editors often have clear expectations on reviewer duties. One of the most important ones is that of confidentiality. Because the paper was published on ArXiv, you are not taking advantage of your role as a reviewer, (which would be considered unethical).

However, an outside observer could come to the wrong conclusion that you did profit from interacting with the paper as a reviewer. The solution is to put your question to the editor of the journal, while or after submitting your recommendation on the paper.

Another possible conflict that an outside observer could see is that you now have a positive interest in the paper getting published and are no longer an unbiased reviewer. I don't think that this is important, but again, that is what editors are for.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .