Case Study Review

Scientists who administer grant portfolios in an organization (e.g., agency or foundation). They are generally a researcher’s primary source of information for an organization’s scientific, funding and programmatic matters.

Serving as a reviewer, whether of manuscripts or of grant proposals, entails both positive recognition from one's peers, and a professional obligation to fulfill the role competently and thoroughly. Persons asked to serve as peer reviewers should acknowledge their own limits in performing a review. If the material is significantly out of their area of expertise, they should consider returning the document without review, explaining why they have declined the invitation.

In asking the faculty member to review this manuscript, the editor assumed that he is an expert in the area, presumably based on his past publication record. The faculty member needs to ensure that this assumption is justified, and determine whether he can provide the author(s) and editor with a competent and fair review.

Based on his past work in the field, the faculty member may feel qualified to serve as a reviewer. He can read key recent articles prior to reviewing the manuscript, to make sure he is familiar with the latest work. Since he considers the manuscript to be somewhat peripheral to his own area of expertise, he can indicate to the editor his particular focus in the review. In doing so, he would be acknowledging his own limits in performing the review. However, given his particular situation, the faculty member may elect to return the manuscript without review. If he wishes to remain on the editor's list of potential reviewers, he might consider a brief explanation and a request that he be considered for future reviews, perhaps after six months. Even if he does not want to remain as a potential reviewer for this journal, he should indicate the reason for returning the manuscript without review. If possible, he should consider providing the names of individuals that the editor might consider in his place. In this case, it would be helpful both to the editor and to his own former student to nominate her as an alternative reviewer.

While it is tempting to seek assistance when asked to serve as a reviewer, such action requires the editor’s explicit and formal approval. A manuscript sent to reviewers is considered privileged communication; its contents should not be shared with others without permission from the editor. The faculty member should request the editor's permission to ask the graduate student to help with the review. In sending manuscripts to external reviewers, editors are seeking advice in determining whether a manuscript should be published and, if so, whether changes need to be made prior to publication. It is quite possible that, if requested, the editor will give the faculty member permission to share the manuscript with the graduate student and to receive either a combined review or individual comments from each. However, that decision needs to be made by the editor.

The faculty member requested assistance from the graduate student in reviewing the manuscript. Although this appears to be a professional courtesy to his former graduate student, now instructor, she will, in fact, receive no formal acknowledgment of her efforts. Instead, the faculty member will submit a review under his signature that is based largely, if not completely, on the graduate student’s efforts. A more appropriate approach—and one that would allow the graduate student to receive the credit she deserves—would be to seek formal approval from the editor to have the graduate student serve as a reviewer, either in combination with the faculty member, or on her own.

The comments from a reviewer are only one factor in determining whether a manuscript will be published. Reviewers should not make any assumptions about the final disposition of a manuscript based only on their own review. Although editors are strongly influenced by the recommendations of their reviewers, editorial decisions at variance with the recommendations of external reviewers are still made – moreover, reviewers’ individual assessments may (and often do) differ.

Reviewers need to abide by the general guidelines for this process. Direct contact with an author whose manuscript has been provided for review is not appropriate, since the review is a transaction between the editor and the reviewer. All communication should be directed to the editor, not the author. Also, material contained in manuscripts is considered privileged information and should not be used by reviewers until that information comes into the public domain, e.g., through publication. Unauthorized use of such unpublished materials is considered theft of intellectual property.

If the graduate student does not wish to wait until the manuscript is published, however, she can explore other acceptable avenues for obtaining this information. Has the protocol been referred to in other publications or public forums, such as research meetings? If so, the graduate student can use this information in the public domain as the basis for contacting the author. Alternatively, she can contact the author and seek advice about how to address problems she has with her current experimental approach. This gives the author the option of sharing unpublished information, or not.