Timeline for Reviewer rejects a paper and then publishes the same results as their own?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19 at 7:56 | comment | added | mechanodroid | Indeed, in this particular case the reviewer has not done anything wrong. My original question asked about the probability of them doing something wrong afterwards. You have adequately answered my question, thank you. | |
| Apr 19 at 4:33 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @mechanodroid it sounds like the reviewer rejected your paper because your proof is too complicated, and said they found a much simpler proof. While that may be disappointing to you, I don't see this as evidence that the reviewer is doing anything wrong or unethical, or that their decision to recommend rejection was not made in good faith. And since your paper is uploaded to arXiv, you don't need to worry about getting scooped. The thing to do in this situation would be to resubmit to another journal, possibly after first using the feedback you got to improve your paper. Good luck! | |
| Apr 18 at 22:47 | comment | added | mechanodroid | Thank you for taking the time to explain incentives behind the reviewer's possible actions. I address one of your points in the comments to David White's question. | |
| Apr 18 at 15:23 | history | answered | Dan Romik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |