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.
Erring on the side of caution, Dr. Thompson does not include a comment about her recently published work in the main body of her review, but instead adds a confidential comment to the editor describing her work and its relevance, inquiring whether it should be recommended to the authors and whether she should disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
The handling editor finds that Dr. Thompson’s work is indeed relevant to the paper under review. Upon issuing a revise decision, the editor recommends that the authors consider referencing Dr. Thompson’s work.
Module 4
►Evaluating the Paper
Methodology
Figures
Tables
Results and Analysis
Discussion and Conclusion
References and Supporting Information
CASE STUDY: References and Supporting Information
Module 5: Submitting Your Review
Module 6: Artifact Review and Badging
ACM Peer Reviewer Certification Exam
****
COMPLETE
✓ Module 1: Peer Review Overview
✓ Module 2: Assessing Your Suitability to Review
✓ Module 3: Review Touchstones