Actions when Suspecting a Reviewer of Data Theft or Misrepresentation

Two review types exist: open (revealing reviewer identity) and secret (concealing identity).

Open review

Editor collects evidence, seeking reviewer culpability confirmation. Outcomes
Inconclusive proof: Editor requests more from author, process continues.
Clear guilt: Editor sends facts to reviewer, offering clarification chance. Possible replies: - Reviewer explains logically; editor informs author. - Reviewer stays silent/provides misleading answer; editor contacts reviewer's association for investigation.
Guilty reviewer's services are terminated.
Unresponsive association leads to Editor following up every 2-4 months. - Editor keeps author updated.

Secret review

Follow open review steps.
If author complains, naming innocent person, editor should
Examine relationship between actual and named reviewers.
Approach named reviewer for explanation.
Assess review process, identifying involved parties, updating author.
Revealing reviewer's name depends on journal policy and editor's discretion.
Share Page Improvements
Your volunteer spirit shapes our community. For potential enhancements, just like Wikipedia, click the 'Propose Edit' button.