I agree completely with Ed and made a similar suggestion when this
discussion came up last time i.e. the reviewer should reveal the identity
if he wants coordinates. Even data (including raw data if need be) can be
given in those cases. As reviewer has a reason to suspect and therefore
want to inspect the data implicated in the manuscript of the author(s), the
author(s) has every reason to suspect the motive of such reviewers
('Reviewers' are not 'gods' or a different breed, they are future 'authors'
of papers and proposals).
While almost always we find that 'reviewers' dont indulge in any kind of
malpractices and are very useful in improving the quality of manuscripts,
there are rarest of rare scenarios when one also encounters reviewer
'misconduct'. More so if you do not belong to certain clubs or the high
profile niches/regions of research.
A reviewer(may be a competitor but one who does not come out explicitly
with a conflict of interest) need not use just data only, but can also get
clues/ideas presented in the manuscript to scoop. To narrate a situation
that happened to us several years back, this 'reviewer' played a delaying
tactics by asking for more data to be included in the manuscript (did not
reject though), which were not relevant at all. The editor who handled the
manuscript was a serious one, luckily for us, and accepted our argument
that it was not required. The paper was accepted but it had to wait for
publication in the journal. Before it was published, we saw a paper
appearing in another journal (submitted after acceptance of our paper) and
accepted for publication in a few days with Immediate Online Publication.
The paper had the claims, very similar to ones made in our paper, from a
half baked story on a structure of a homologous system. The corresponding
author of the paper was the first reviewer (as we thought he/she was an
authority in the area!!!) whom we suggested. When we contacted the editor
to reveal the identity of the 'reviewer' by mentioning the case, a mute
reply(apology!) came that they are sorry that this has happened. Also, I
must add that these situations are more likely when the claims are high
(read as higher journal impact factor!).
The above scenario, if it happens when one is reasonably established, would
not affect the individual as much as it would have affected someone in the
beginning of his/her career. I am tempted to favour, at this point of time
of my career, the suggestion to part not only with the PDB but even with
raw data at the time of submission. However, considering the non ideal
systems that we have to deal with, I would expect the community to put a
rider to stop the rarest of rare 'reviewer' misconducts, even though it
can only be a costly affair to a handful!
-Sankar
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Ed Pozharski <epozh...@umaryland.edu>wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> while reviewer-bashing is my favorite pastime too (recent gem: "studying
> transcription factors will not advance our understanding of mechanistic
> enzymology"), you should remember that they are unpaid individuals who
> volunteer their time to help you to improve your paper (or so the idea
> goes). It is also important to recognize that the editor accepts the
> paper, not the reviewer (who acts in advisory capacity).
>
> A much better alternative to your draconian list was already mentioned -
> "I'll give you my data if you tell me who you are". Works for me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed.
>
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:07 -0400, Manoj Tiwari wrote:
> > 1) The reviewer should be given at most 24-48 hours of time to give
> > comments after receiving the data.
> >
> > 2) (S)he should declare to the editor that the paper is going to be
> > accepted if everything with the data/model is okay. The reviewer
> > should also send comments to author on what does (s)he intend to
> > examine in the structure.
> >
> > 3) After going through the model/data, the reviewer's comment should
> > be exclusively based on the structure or its correlation with the
> > experimental data.
> >
> > 4) If reviewer finds any mistake which can not be corrected or which
> > changes the theme of the paper and the reviewer rejects the paper, the
> > responsibility should lie on author. But certainly the editor or a
> > team decided by editor should ensure that when the paper is rejected
> > at this stage, the reason for rejection is valid and the mistakes can
> > not be rectified. Editor should also ensure that authors are given
> > sufficient opportunity to correct the mistake if possible.
> >
> >
>
> --
> I don't know why the sacrifice thing didn't work.
> Science behind it seemed so solid.
> Julian, King of Lemurs
>
