American Physical Society
American Physical Society Sites|APS|Journals|PhysicsCentral|Physics
 
Login| Become a Member|Contact Us
  • Publications
    • Journals of the American Physical Society
    • APS News
    • Physics
    • Physics Today
    • Capitol Hill Quarterly
    • Other APS Publications
    • Reciprocal Society Newsletters
  • Meetings & Events
    • March Meeting
    • April Meeting
    • Meeting Calendar
    • Abstract Submission
    • Archives of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society
    • Policies & Guidelines
    • Meeting Presentations
    • Virtual Press Rooms
  • Programs
    • Education
    • International Affairs
    • Physics Outreach
    • Women in Physics
    • Minorities in Physics
    • Prizes, Awards & Fellows
  • Membership
    • Join APS
    • Renew Membership
    • Member Directory
    • My Member Profile
    • Member Services
    • APS Units
  • Policy & Advocacy
    • Issues
    • Reports & Studies
    • APS Statements
    • Advocacy Tools
    • Advocacy Resources
    • Fellowships & Fellows
    • Contact APS Public Affairs
  • Careers In Physics
    • Physics Jobs
    • Becoming a Physicist
    • Career Guidance
    • Physics Careers Statistical Data
  • About APS
    • Mission Statement
    • Society Governance
    • Society History
    • Donate to APS
    • APS Jobs
    • Contact Us
Programs
  • Education
    • Why Study Physics?
    • K - 8
    • High School
    • Undergraduate
    • Graduate
    • Education Conferences
    • Ethics Case Studies
  • International Affairs
  • Physics Outreach
  • Women in Physics
  • Minorities in Physics
  • Prizes, Awards & Fellows

Email Email   Print Print     Share Share
 
Home   |   Programs   |   Education   |   Ethics Case Studies   |   Publication Practices   |   Peer Review

Peer Review

Description of the Problem

Over lunch one day, your advisor tells you that he is reviewing a paper unfavorably. He rationalizes that the group that is performing the work is in direct competition for funds with your group, and thus seeking to undermine the work of the other group would benefit your group. After all, funding is really tight.


It is obvious to you that your advisor has put himself in a position of conflict of interest, and is not being fair in his review of an otherwise credible piece of scientific research. Your advisor further complicates the situation by asking for your input, given that you are also working directly on one important aspect of the work. You read the paper, and find it plausible.


Question

What should you do?

Gray arrow Peer Review Discussion

Home | APS Jobs | Media Center | Terms of Use | Site Map

Follow APS: Feeds Facebook LinkedIn Wordpress Twitter Google Plus YouTube

© 2013 American Physical Society