44

I was asked to review a technical paper for a journal at a large commercial publisher. The paper extends on another publication that is cited several times throughout the document. The cited paper was published at the same publisher but in a different journal. I work for an R&D department in a private company. We do not have a subscription with the publisher and no budget to buy articles (at least not in cases like this). I.e., I cannot access the cited paper. Would it be acceptable to ask the editor of the journal I review for to provide me with the cited paper?

Additional Information: The review process is double blind, so I do not know if the cited paper and the paper I'm reviewing are from the same authors. Given the specific topic, it seems likely to me. This is why I did not ask the authors for a copy. I was also unable to find a free version of the paper online.

Outcome: I asked the editor for the paper and received a copy within hours. Along with ads for a subscription of that journal.

rams
  • 543
  • 4
  • 7
  • 14
    If you can't get it from the publisher, consider asking the authors for a copy. And look on ArXiv, if the paper is in a field that uses that. – David Richerby May 29 '19 at 17:02
  • 30
    If you can't get it from the publisher, consider declining to review the new paper. You're already donating your work for their profit, and if they're unwilling to meet your expenses for that job, then they do not deserve that donation. They have a professional obligation to provide any papers that are necessary for the review and which you do not already have access to, regardless of whether it's from the same publisher or not. – E.P. May 30 '19 at 07:24
  • I'd like to notice that typically it is required by the journals that the new manuscripts are self-contained and could be completely understood without having to read the authors' previous works. – And R May 30 '19 at 13:09
  • 7
    @AndreyR, I don't think that's necessarily true--or fair to expect. At one extreme, consider a "Comment on..." or "Matters arising..." article. It should summarize the paper in question, but that summary may be biased towards whatever point the new article is making, and reviewers ought to check/comment on any bias. Even run-of-the-mill 'follow-up' articles can only be self-contained via citations: no journal will give you enough space to rehash the history of an entire field or explain why certain factors matter (or not). – Matt May 30 '19 at 14:49
  • @Matt, not that I'm saying that's necessarily true, I wanted to convey an idea that if the manuscript under the review could not be understood without a careful reading of the previous works of the authors, that's a point that definitely has to be communicated to the editor. Except, of course, the obvious cases you mention like a Comment when it's automatically understood. – And R May 31 '19 at 07:45
  • 2
    @AndreyR: All research builds on earlier work; in my experience (in mathematics), it’s very rare for a paper to be so self-contained that I can read it without looking up some bits of background in its reference, unless it’s on a topic extremely close to my own work (e.g. my co-authors’ or students’ papers). It’s usually impossible to make a research paper that self-contained without turning it into a full textbook. – PLL May 31 '19 at 13:15
  • Can you explicitly state whether the paper you want is written by the same author as the one you are reviewing? The number of solutions depends on knowing this. – GeoMonkey May 31 '19 at 13:51
  • @AndreyR, I still think that self-containedness is not a reasonable goal, so this situation could happen even with a perfect paper. As another example, suppose they already published something validating a key method. I would not expect--or really, want--to see that work repeated in every publication. Something like "We have previously demonstrated this technique is highly selective for....(XYZ et al, 2016)" would be better.

    That's enough to understand the work, but you might need to see the first paper to trust or evaluate it (overstated result?, different conditions?, etc).

     – Matt May 31 '19 at 14:31
  • 1
    At some publishers, you get time-limited access for more of their services at the moment you register in their system as a reviewer for a paper. – Oleg Lobachev May 31 '19 at 19:20
  • Is the paper that you need to look at published by the same publisher that asked you to review the paper? If so, you can probably get access. If not, your best bet is to contact the author of the paper that you want to read. – Brian Borchers May 31 '19 at 19:58
  • @rams, Please update your question with an edit at the end to tell everyone what you finally did. This would help us all to learn from each other.experience – Tripartio Jun 03 '19 at 20:51

1 Answers1

58

Yes, you can. Chances are they'll be willing to give it to you.

See also: Can a referee request a paper referenced in the reviewed paper?, except your situation is simpler because the desk editor of the journal can probably already access the paper and won't have to request it.

Allure
  • 127,528
  • 50
  • 325
  • 493