Doing Economics

6.5 Ethics of Peer Review
I mentioned ethical considerations for authors in chapter 4, but here are, in
no particular order, a set of ethical prescriptions for peer reviewers:
1. If you have a conflict of interest, declare it; if you have reviewed
the paper before, let the editor know. Academics tend to work in
silos, i.e., narrow areas of research wherein there are few others.
This means that you will inevitably run into the same researchers

---

at conferences and meetings, and that you may end up working
with them. Moreover, the more time you spend in the profession,
the more advisees you will have had, who may be working on
topics close to yours, if not on the very same topics. If you get
asked to review a coauthor, an advisee, an advisor, or a
colleague’s paper,
8
 the right thing to do is to recuse yourself and
refuse to serve as a reviewer in order to avoid any conflict of
interest. Likewise, if you have reviewed a paper once before for
another journal, let the editor know about it, especially if you
have recommended a rejection. The idea here is that the principle
of double jeopardy—the legal principle whereby someone should
not undergo trial a second time for the same charges he was
acquitted of the first time—should apply. Now, it is possible that
the editor will tell you that she does not mind that you have seen
the paper before in order to see whether the authors have
incorporated some feedback in between journals, but you will at
least have done due diligence. Similarly, it may occur that you
have had a personal conflict with an author or set of authors. If
that is the case and you feel that you cannot remain objective
about that author or group of authors’ work, you should recuse
yourself. Though it can be tempting to stick it to someone who
has slighted you, remember the Golden Rule, and ask yourself
whether you would want them to be your reviewers.
2. If you are working on the exact same topic, say so. You have
almost surely heard the expression “an idea whose time has
come,” and so it should come as no surprise to you that
sometimes different people concurrently have the same idea for a
paper and start working on that idea separately and at the same
time.
9
If you are asked to review a paper that does (almost)
exactly what you do in your own paper, bring it up with the
editor. Some well-known papers originally started out as two
distinct papers, only to have both groups of coauthors merge into
one group to produce a stronger paper. Cole et al.’s (2013)
seminal article on index insurance in developing countries started
out as two distinct papers. As Xavier Giné, one of the coauthors
in Cole et al., put it to me in an email: “Cole et al. (2013) was
originally two independent RCTs to understand the barriers to

---

adoption of rainfall insurance, one in Gujarat (Cole, Topalova and
Tobacman) and the other in [Andhra Pradesh] (Townsend,
Vickery and [Giné]). We did not learn of each other projects
during the review process, but during early stages of presenting
preliminary results at a conference. Since we knew Shawn [Cole]
well, and it was clear that the papers were quite similar, we
decided that a merged paper would be better than two separate
ones” (Xavier Giné, personal correspondence, September 22,
2020). The worst thing you can do here is to hide the fact you are
working on the same topic and recommend a rejection so you can
beat the authors of the paper you were asked to review to the
punch.
3. Do not steal the ideas of the papers you review. This should really
go without saying, but do not steal other people’s ideas after
recommending that their paper be rejected. Not only is this type
of behavior extremely unethical, but you should aim to come up
with your own ideas. In the limit, it is much better to do work that
is derivative of someone else’s work than to do work that is not
truly your own. If you have to resort to stealing other people’s
ideas, research is not for you.
4. Plan on submitting your review on time. Once again keeping the
Golden Rule in mind, plan on submitting your review on time.
Obviously, sometimes life will get in the way, and you will have
to submit a review later than expected, but do not wait for a
journal’s editorial system to send you automatic notifications that
your review is late and reminders that it was due a while ago.
Rather, plan on submitting your review on time. If you do not
think you can submit a review on time, you can either decline to
review the manuscript, making sure to let the editor know your
reason for doing so, or you can ask for a later deadline. Here, it
helps to know your type, so to speak. If you know you suffer from
time-inconsistency and that you tend to procrastinate, tie yourself
to your own mast by starting your reviews as soon as you agree to
do them. That is preferable to starting them the night before they
are due, only to realize you will need more time.

---

5. Review for the journal that solicited a review from you, not for
your ideal journal. The Golden Rule applies here as well. When
you submit to a field journal, you almost surely are not expecting
your reviewers to treat your manuscript like it has been submitted
for publication in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The same
logic applies in reverse: if you are asked to review a manuscript
by a field journal, do not hold the manuscript to the standards of
the American Economic Review.
6. Do not review for predatory journals. This goes without saying,
but since this is about peer-review ethics and those journals are
clearly unethical, do not review for them. At best, doing so will
be a waste of your time. At worst, you will be lending credence to
them rather than the other way around, as it is unlikely they will
be using your feedback for anything other than putting up the
pretense of respectability.