2.0 Dive into an interesting story


Read or recall Hannah’s protocol.
Imagine the story continues as follows:

Some weeks after the meeting Hannah meets a colleague who complains that an article he had submitted last year to a leading journal in his field was rejected, whereas a similar article reaching the same conclusions was published in the latest issue. The first author of the published article states in the CV on her website that she is a reviewer for the journal.

Although the review process was anonymous, he suspects that the first author of the published paper reviewed his manuscript and recommended its rejection, not on the grounds of quality, but because she wanted to publish a similar paper that otherwise would have lacked originality. Hannah’s colleague is enraged and feels betrayed by the peer review system.

Summarise, in your own words, the conflict of interest?
Submit your summary in 5 to 7 sentences (subject: story_name).

(There are no discussion topics yet in this forum)