🚀 go-pugleaf

solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:

>In article <1993Jan9.113916.27542@fuug.fi>, an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:
>|> I'm a graduate student and I have a bit of a problem
>|> with my advisor.  He gave me some papers to referee,
>|> and these papers were submitted to a conference to
>|> which I have also submitted a paper. The problem is
>|> that these papers are very similar to the paper which
>|> I submitted, and so they will be competing directly 
>|> against my paper. I told him that I could not act as 
>|> an impartial reviewer, and I asked to have someone else
>|> review the papers, but he refused.  (He is also the
>|> conference co-chairman).  
>
>The proper thing to do is ask the conference chairman. If he says it is OK
>then it is OK. The responsibility for guaranteeing an impartial reviewing
>system rests with the conference chairmen. It is their responsibility to
>consider your bias (after you bring it to their attention.). If you made
>your advisor aware of the conflict of interest and he said that you should
>still review the papers, do so. It is likely that were your review out of
>line with those of the other referees, your bias would be taken into account.

That seems like reasonable advice, but I've received conflicting 
advice over in soc.college.grad to refuse to review the papers.
Could you perhaps come over there and offer your opinion 
on their advice? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.