Note the procedures below are similar to those for research misappropriation by one author of another author’s work
Complainant must be made aware that matter cannot be investigated unless the journal Editor informs the reviewer (due process obligation to reviewer, similar to that owed to authors) and possibly the institution or company at which the reviewer is employed
In the communication to the reviewer (see Form Letter F), the Editor should indicate that matter may be referred to reviewer’s institution or company if the reviewer does not or is unable to provide a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by Editor)
If reviewer accepts the position of the complainant, and if an inappropriate publication or public claim has been made by the reviewer that the Editor believes should be retracted...
... then the Editor will work with the relevant publishing editor to effect such retraction or removal, and ensure that the actual researcher receives appropriate credit (this could take many forms depending on the circumstances)
the Editor will most likely remove the reviewer from the journal database (a form of asking for the reviewer’s resignation) and may consider in extreme cases whether any form of public statement to that effect would be appropriate (with legal review for defamation and reviewer confidentiality issues)
If reviewer rejects the position of the complainant...
... then the Editor will have to consider whether the reviewer’s explanation is reasonable—normally the Editor would also inform the complainant of the reviewer’s explanation and seek comment (see Form Letter G)
