American Physical Society
 
Become a Member | Contact Us
  • Publications
    • Journals of the American Physical Society
    • APS News
    • Physics Today
    • Physical Review Focus
    • Capitol Hill Quarterly
    • Other APS Publications
    • Reciprocal Society Newsletters
  • Meetings & Events
    • March Meeting
    • April Meeting
    • Other APS Meetings
    • Meeting Calendar
    • Abstract Submission
    • Archives of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society
    • Policies & Guidelines
    • Archived Multimedia Presentations
  • Programs
    • Education
    • International Affairs
    • Physics for All
    • Women in Physics
    • Minorities in Physics
    • Prizes, Awards & Fellowships
  • 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
    • Inside APS Public Affairs
  • Careers In Physics
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Student Guidance
    • Educator Guidance
    • Career Guidance
  • About APS
    • History & Vision
    • Society Governance
    • Support APS
    • APS Jobs
    • Contact Us
    • Visit Us
Programs
  • Education
    • Why Study Physics?
    • K-12
    • Undergraduate
    • Graduate
    • Education Conferences
    • Ethics Case Studies
    • Resources
  • International Affairs
  • Physics for All
  • Women in Physics
  • Minorities in Physics
  • Prizes, Awards & Fellowships

 
Home   |   Programs   |   Education   |   Ethics Case Studies   |   Publication Practices   |   Conflict of Interest in Refereeing

Conflict of Interest in Refereeing

Email | Print

Description of the Problem

A young referee claimed to have been coincidentally working on the same problem that appeared in a paper he was sent to review. He made a positive review, and then went on to publish his own paper on the subject. The original author took note, and complained to the journal. When approached, the referee pleaded with the journal that his institution not be contacted, apologized profusely, sometimes tacitly admitting and sometimes denying any guilt.

Questions

What action should the journal in question have taken? Should the editors notify the referee’s institution? What should the author have done to avoid this mess?
> View Discussion
Home | APS Jobs | Media Center | Privacy | Site Map
    © 2008 American Physical Society