The Very Interested Reviewer: Comments

Author(s): From John Gardinier, a statistician and active in the ethics of his field.

  1. I would not indicate in my review that I had a shorter and better proof.
  2. Assuming the result being reviewed is original and as good as or better than anything published in my field to this point, I would recommend the article for publication. I would also point out to the editor that I would like to cite this article in my own writing, so please let me know the publication date/data as soon as possible.
  3. I would write up my own article, citing the article I had reviewed with its full publication reference. I would mention that my own work on this article was stimulated in part by that article. I would avoid making any invidious comparisons; let the relative worth of the two methods be judged by the readers.
Cite this page: From John Gardinier, a statistician and active in the ethics of his field. "The Very Interested Reviewer: Comments" Online Ethics Center for Engineering 9/10/2006 2:27:45 PM National Academy of Engineering Accessed: Friday, January 09, 2009 <www.onlineethics.org/CMS/research/modindex/resethpages/interest1.aspx>


Search