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 22:41 | comment | added | user1394273 | Thus, reproducing a paper from the arXiv and submitting it to a journal would not, in my opinion, be "scooping" today. And submitting a deliberately incorrect result to arXiv to protect an in-review work today would be significantly more unethical than the scenario described in my post (though it's debatable whether misleading reviewers in that manner is ethical). | |
| Apr 19 at 22:41 | comment | added | user1394273 | @DanRomik My impression is that when the paper is on the arXiv, it is "out," in some sense. It isn't given the same authority as a peer-reviewed article, but the authors are still expected to defend claims made therein if other researchers fail to reproduce the results. On the other hand, the reviewers' job isn't to reproduce a paper (so if they can't reproduce the results, it isn't inherently a problem), and a paper that is in review but not on arXiv is not a "public" assertion by the authors. | |
| Apr 19 at 20:35 | comment | added | Dan Romik | It sounds like bad things along the lines of what OP is worried about were indeed occasionally happening in the era before arXiv. Can you comment about whether this is likely to happen today with a paper that has been uploaded to arXiv? (My own answer dismisses OP's concern as unrealistic because of arXiv, but I'm curious if in a context outside of pure math such as experimental physics there are still incentives in play that can cause a reviewer to behave unethically.) | |
| Apr 19 at 13:50 | history | answered | user1394273 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |