Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

12
  • 63
    "the reviewer is not technically plagiarising anything. Firstly because there is no published work to plagiarise (because the original paper was rejected)" There is no requirement that plagiarism only counts as plagiarism if the original work is published. You can plagiarize from preprints, research notes, talks, conversations, etc. Plagiarism (excluding self-plagiarism for simplicity) just means you are taking someone else's work (note that "work" does not mean "published paper") and presenting it as yours. Commented Apr 18 at 10:41
  • 1
    Question. In paper 3, does the reviewer refer to 1 ?
    – GEdgar
    Commented Apr 18 at 16:36
  • 1
    I believe this happened once. There was a trail of emails and documents proving that the reviewer has pillaged the work from someone else and the paper was withdrawn.
    – Tom
    Commented Apr 19 at 13:04
  • 2
    @AgnishomChattopadhyay I disagree in the following way: "double-blind" means "identities are not disclosed as part of the reviewing process", but it never means "it's impossible to determine the author's identity if we try to". A referee who wants to find out who the author is will almost surely be able to even without an arXiv preprint. (They shouldn't try to either way, of course.) Commented Apr 19 at 18:02
  • 1
    @AgnishomChattopadhyay That is a problem with the concept of double blind reviews, not with pre-publishing on arXiv.
    – TimRias
    Commented Apr 20 at 17:52