Case Studies for Peer Reviewers

🔎 Case Study: Co-review/Sub-review 🔎

Alex, a graduate student for Dr. Kovac, was asked to perform the review of a paper Dr. Kovac was invited to review. Alex, eager to gain experience and please his mentor, diligently evaluated the manuscript. However, the AE was not informed.

After sending his completed review to Dr. Kovac, who then submitted the review to the journal, Alex began to be concerned about the unreported delegation. Would his input be perceived with the same level of credibility as a review conducted by a seasoned researcher? What did the lack of acknowledgment say about a potential imbalance of power between him and his mentor?

How should Alex proceed? Click here to find out.

🔎 Case Study: Conflict of Interest 🔎

Dr. Rodriguez was assigned as a peer reviewer for a manuscript investigating a topic in her field of expertise.

Dr. Rodriguez was unaware that the lead author of the submitted manuscript, Dr. Stevens, had recently joined a research consortium that included Dr. Rodriguez’s longtime colleague, Dr. Carter. Their collaboration was not widely known, as their partnership was still in its early stages and had not been officially disclosed.

As Dr. Rodriguez delved into the manuscript, she noticed a familiarity with some of the research methods outlined in the paper. She decided to investigate further and discovered the new and ongoing collaboration between Dr. Stevens and Dr. Carter. Based on this, she anticipated that she and Dr. Stevens might collaborate in the future and, realizing the potential for bias, she faced a dilemma in maintaining objectivity during the review process.

How should Dr. Rodriguez proceed? Click here to find out.

🔎 Case Study: Machine-Generated Writing 🔎

Dr. Tanaka was assigned as a reviewer for a paper submitted to an ACM publication. As she began reading the paper, she noticed some things about the writing that gave her pause, such as that key experimental details were missing from the Methods and the same phrases were used in several places throughout the text, among others. The figures also had some irregularities.

Dr. Tanaka suspected that the author had used an LLM to generate the text, and even the figures, of the paper.

How should Dr. Tanaka proceed? Click here to find out.

🔎 Case Study: Reporting Ethical Violations 🔎

Dr. Schwartz is assigned as a peer reviewer for a paper submitted by a team of researchers led by Dr. Owusu. As she meticulously reviews the manuscript, she notices substantial data manipulation, with several images appearing to be duplicated or altered to enhance the study's results. This raised serious concerns about the validity of the research presented.

Despite recognizing the severity of the ethics violation, Dr. Schwartz hesitates to report the misconduct. Dr. Owusu is a prominent figure in the field, and if he recognizes that Dr. Schwartz authored the review, she fears there would be retaliation, including damage to her professional reputation, or even strained relationships with colleagues. The fear of reprisal leaves her uncertain about how to address the ethical breach.

How should Dr. Schwartz proceed? Click here to find out.

🔎 Case Study: References and Supporting Information 🔎

Dr. Thompson has recently published a paper in her field of study. Subsequently, she was invited to review a paper written by a prominent author group on a topic related to her own recent work. Her recently published paper has not been cited in the paper she is reviewing.

Dr. Thompson considers whether to recommend that the authors reference her work in their paper. She is aware of the importance of maintaining objectivity and avoiding any conflicts of interest in the peer review process. She also thinks it is possible that the authors may not be aware of her work on the topic because it was so recently published.

How should Dr. Thompson proceed? Click here to find out.

ACM Peer Review Training Course

Module 1: Peer Review Overview

Module 2: Assessing Your Suitability to Review

Module 3: Review Touchstones

Module 4: Evaluating the Paper

Module 5: Submitting Your Review

Module 6: Artifact Review and Badging

ACM Peer Reviewer Certification Exam