CAMBRIDGE, MA (RPT) – Yesterday, a reviewer requested that he should be listed as first author on a manuscript he was reviewing for a mid-tier scientific journal. This request came after three rounds of review and revision during which the reviewer demanded that the original authors cite his research extensively and change the hypotheses and conclusions to align more with his own program of research. “If the authors didn’t agree with my requested changes, they shouldn’t have made them,” the reviewer argued. “At this point, I’ve written more of the paper than any of the other authors.”
Several academics have expressed concern that reviewers are granted too much power in guiding the direction of manuscripts, particularly given recent criticisms of the peer review process as a whole. “I once had a reviewer make me change my very clear and descriptive title to something cute and fuzzy. That’s such bullshit! Everyone knows studies with cute titles don’t replicate.” one scientist told RPT correspondents. Others are worried that reviewers use the peer review process as means for boosting their own prestige. “I once had a reviewer request that I refer to his work as ‘seminal and transformative’ and then wait to submit my revision until his new paper had been out for 2 decades, just so I could cite it as ‘a classic’.”
