During review, I found a superior solution. What now?

Question

I received a journal paper for a review. The paper suggests a solution to an important problem, but the solution is very complicated and has mediocre performance. While reading the paper, I thought of a different solution, which is much simpler and has better performance (to give some scale: their solution is 1 page to write and 5 pages to prove; my solution is 5 lines to write and half a page to prove).

What should I do now?

A. Write my solution in the review, hoping the authors will remember to "thank the anonymous reviewer"?

B. Recommend that the paper published as is, then write a paper of my own with my improved solution?

C. Something else?

EDIT: Before I found the superior solution, I thought of recommending "resubmit with major revision", with the reasons that I mentioned above: your solution is too complicated and its performance is too weak.

However, now I am not sure it is the good course of action. A major revision may take a long time. The authors might even decide to delay or stop working on the paper without telling the editor (or me). Meanwhile, I will have to postpone the publishing of the superior solution for an indefinite amount of time. What do you think?

Answer 1

I didn't get a clear impression of your opinion of the authors' work. "Solving an important problem" ought to make for an excellent paper, but the rest of your description seems to partially negate that. (In particular, I don't quite know what a "nonstandard input parameter" is, but it sounds a bit like they are cheating or that the legitimacy of their solution could be a matter of debate.)

Either way, it seems to follow from what you say that you feel that you have solved an important problem, indeed in a better way than the authors. Unless you are such a known superstar in your field that this is a commonplace occurrence for you, I would think that you deserve to get more out of this than an anonymous thanks. To me the options seem to be:

1) If the authors' paper is strong enough to be published, say so. You should not hide your opinions about their shortcomings, but you don't have to include your new ideas in your referee report. Then:

1a) If just by responding to your criticism (if they care to) the authors replicate your better solution, then it seems that you did not add critical value, and I would just recommend accepting their modified version and letting the matter end there.

But

1b) If your conscientious refereeing produces a version that is worth publishing but does not replicate your superior solution, then you should prepare your solution for publication. The timing of this is something that you should ask for other opinions about. It would be ideal if the authors had circulated their results in preprint form. If not, you may need to delay submission until their paper actually appears.

2) If you think the paper is not publishable in its current form in the journal to which it was submitted but that it inspired you to solve the problem in a better way, this may be a case for you to ask permission to contact the authors and add your work to theirs.

3) If the work is really not valuable and your solution has little or nothing to do with theirs, then you could just recommend the paper for rejection and then submit your own solution elsewhere. Examine your conscience carefully before doing this though: imagine that the authors found out exactly what you did. Would they see it your way?

Answer 2

Option C is to contact the authors, aiming to become coauthor of a better paper. This should be done via the editor of the journal/proceeding you work for, to avoid the impression that you try to exploit your position to get free publications. The editor writes a letter to the authors stating that the anonymous referee has found a better solution, and ask whether they want to write a joint paper. If they refuse, you can still choose option B.

This option is only viable, if the result you improve is a significant part of the paper, and the authors have every right to differ in their judgement from you, so a refusal does not mean that they are mean/not cooperative/envious/whatever.

At a later stage in your carreer, i.e. once you have a good position, you should opt for A. This is not only common interest, but also helping yourself. It does not make a difference whether you have 76 or 82 publications, but editors read your reports and notice, and usually editors are influential people.

As a sideremark I would recommend you to take a little more care about the "anonymous referee" stuff. If the authors read this post, they will know whom to blame.

Answer 3

Ethically speaking, both, A and B, are perfectly valid options in my opinion. If the paper itself provides a significant contribution to the state of the art, I would recommend to publish the paper. Although your solution might be superior (which, please correct me if I am wrong, you have not yet proven) the proposed method might cover different aspects or might be of relevance in a different way. Depending on your motivation to publish a paper with your novel method yourself, this would be the logical next step. Why give your ideas to the current authors "for free" (meaning without real credit)?

Answer 4

Option B strikes me as the best solution here, as it seems the original paper gave you the basis from which to create a better solution. Their paper could also help other researchers finding other solutions.

So unless you feel that their contribution is not enough of a step forward, or their proof is missing pieces or incorrect, then it would seem to merit publication.

They get their publication credit for the paper, and you have the beginnings of a new paper.