THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

The Very Interested Reviewer

Author(s): Adapted from a scenario by Michael Lavine, Statistics Department, Duke University

As a recent Ph.D., you receive a journal article to referee. This article provides a proof for a result in your area of study. You become intrigued by the topic, and after a few weeks you come up with a shorter and better proof. You feel clear about your recommendation regarding the publishability of the result submitted to you.

What, if anything, can and should you do or say about your own new proof?

Comment by John Gardinier,

a statistician and active in the ethics of his field

Response of Albert Meyer,

in the theory area within computer science at MIT

• Return to Research Ethics Module Supporting Pages

• Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals

• The Very Interested Reviewer: Comments

National Academy of Engineering

500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001T. 202.334.3200F. 202.334.2290