Is this a conflict of interest? (reviewing an article)

[andresB]

A journal sent me an email asking me to be an adjudicator for one article since the two reviewers disagreed on their recommendations. I accepted based on the abstract. When reading the paper I found that

(a) The author is citing me, not a big deal I guess.

but

(b) The author gives a solution to a problem I've been struggling with for one of my own works. So, personally, I would benefit from this paper being published since I can then cite it in my own work. Is this a conflict of interest that I should inform the editors of the journal?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you have to ask, the answer is "yes".

 

[Haborix]

While Vanadium's response is a good heuristic, I'm not sure it should apply to this situation. First, see if the journal has any stated policies and follow those. Aside from that, it seems like the two facts given would correlate with the criteria editors are following when they are looking for reviewers---someone in the field (citing the prospective reviewer) who will know if the work is impactful (being cited by the prospective reviewer). I have to say that the incentives here don't seem malignant. It is in your interest that the work was done correctly since you want to use it in support of your own. In the end, follow the journal's policies, and if they have none, then your own conscience. You could always note to the editor your concerns before/when you submit your review and vote for/against publication.

 

[berkeman]

(b) The author gives a solution to a problem I've been struggling with for one of my own works. So, personally, I would benefit from this paper being published since I can then cite it in my own work. Is this a conflict of interest that I should inform the editors of the journal?

So it sounds like you may not be able to be completely objective in your review of the paper. What if you side with the previous reviewer who said "no" to the paper? And if you do that, can you still gain insights that might help you in your own work?

It seems straightforward to inform the editors and see if they are still okay with you being the 3rd reviewer.

 

[Orodruin]

If I had doubts on impartiality I would ask the editor. If I were an editor, I would definitely not consider (a) a conflict of interest (that would disqualify most actually competent referees working in my field). When it comes to (b) you have an interest in the paper being published if correct. You will probably also obtain the previous referee reports and have the opportunity to consider the points for and against publication raised in each.

 

[mathwonk]

i support informing the editor of your interest in the publication of this result, and would suggest that fact is itself an argument in favor of the importance and interest of the result. but informing the editor cannot be wrong, and not doing so seems wrong to me.