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?

Alex’s concerns led him to reference the ACM Peer Review Policy and the Peer Review Policy FAQs to confirm whether his concerns were valid. Though he was worried Dr. Kovac would be upset when he raised this concern, and that there might be retaliation, Alex decided to discuss the situation with Dr. Kovac.

Alex explained the ACM policy, something Dr. Kovac was unaware of. He promptly informed the AE of Alex’s involvement in the review of the paper. However, if Dr. Kovac had not been receptive to the discussion, Alex had another option: He could confidentially report the policy violation to ACM via their online form.

Back to course

Module 1: Peer Review Overview

►Elements of a Good Review

Expertise
Impartiality
Inclusivity
Confidentiality
CASE STUDY: co-review/sub-review
Timeliness

Levels of Anonymity and Confidentiality in Peer Review
ACM Publication Policies
ACM Peer Review Workflow

Module 1: Peer Review Overview

Case Study: Co-Review/Sub-Review

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