Q: What should I do, if during a performance evaluation that I am involved in, I found that two of a researcher's papers are similar to their supervisor's papers?
I was asked to perform a review of three papers to evaluate [the researcher's] promotion within the university, as the field of the studies is close to my field. The theme and analytical methods of the papers are unfamiliar to me, so I searched for past studies. However, I found that for two of the three papers, the research and method are similar to that published by the author's supervisor, but the papers are not cited/provided as a reference in the researcher’s papers. What should I do?
Indeed, the situation seems to need careful handling. Based on the information you have provided, we have suggested proceeding in a certain manner, to ensure you are doing the best ethically for both the researcher and the university.
1. Consider all possible reasons for the similarity between the methods and the absence of references.
Are the journals in which the two papers were published peer-reviewed/reputable? If yes, consider that these papers likely passed a careful scrutiny by a journal (or two journals) and were still published without the methods being referenced. Is it likely that the journal editors and/or peer reviewers missed something?
Also, you have mentioned that your field of research is close to that of the other researcher’s and that you carried out a literature search for similar studies. So, another point to consider is if you are confident enough about the search to rule out the possibility that these methods may not be uncommon within this specialization and therefore were unreferenced by the author.
A final point: were the supervisor’s papers published before the author’s papers? For the author to cite the supervisor’s paper, the supervisor’s paper would need to be published before.
Assuming that you’ve considered all of the above points and believe that the author indeed neglected to appropriately cite the supervisor’s paper, you can then move on to the next step.
2. Understand the university’s guidelines on the evaluation of papers for promotion.
Find out if your university provides any checklists/guidelines on which aspects to assess and comment on when evaluating papers for promotion (the way some journals share guidelines for peer reviewers). If so, this may help you determine how best to raise any potential concerns.
If no such guidelines are available, you may consider identifying individuals in your university who could share inputs on how to raise concerns when writing evaluation reports. These could be people in the department in charge of the researcher evaluation process or those who have experience providing such evaluations – someone you trust and are comfortable approaching. If you are uncomfortable asking them about handling ethical concerns, you could tactfully ask them to share general tips/guidelines on things to consider when assessing papers and writing comments, avoiding any reference to the specifics of this case.
In short, every university/organization typically has its own procedures/approaches for performance evaluation, and it is best that you understand how things work within your university and accordingly decide how to address such concerns. Of course, if you’ve been with this university for a while, you may be quite familiar with these already.
3. Raise your concerns honestly, professionally, and with adequate explanation.
If you are confident that the author has indeed not adopted ethical publication practices in this case and you have identified the best way to raise this concern, do so in a professional and considerate manner – the way you would when conducting a peer review. Be honest and focus only on the concern. Explain clearly what you are calling out and why; mention the details of the search and what you found. Finally, once you’ve written your evaluation/report, take a break and then review it with a fresh perspective to ensure it is objective and clear.
4. Calmly address any additional anxiety you may have about this evaluation.
While you have sounded fairly calm and matter-of-fact in your articulation of the situation, this evaluation may probably have an additional layer of anxiety as it is directly related to someone’s promotion at work, possibly a peer’s. However, do keep in mind that you were probably chosen as an evaluator because of not only your subject expertise but also your ability to be thorough and objective. You seem to have done the right thing so far, in sharing your dilemma and seeking inputs on how to deal with the situation. And no doubt, you’ll continue to proceed with care as you move on to the next actions.
Hope this helps. All the best!
For a deeper exploration of various issues around authorship, you may later find it worthwhile to go through these courses available on R Upskill, a sister brand providing learning programs for various aspects of a researcher’s work, from writing to publication to communication.
This content belongs to the Conducting Research Stage