Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewersHow to deal with an unreasonable reviewer asking to cite irrelevant articles?Can a reviewer suggest references?How to respond to an editor's post-review comments suggesting major changes I'm not willing to make?Timely review process by reviewersIs it common for a journal to reject a paper after accepting it subject to minor revisions?My paper has been rejected again, what should I change?Reviewers want me to cite their barely related papersReferee wants me to do more experiments, but I already submitted these results to another journalShould you revise a manuscript when only two of the three reviewers provide a positive review?Editor's comments differ from those of reviewersJournal review failureCorrecting a paper that just came back from review, what should I do?

a sore throat vs a strep throat vs strep throat

Is there an official tutorial for installing Ubuntu 18.04+ on a device with an SSD and an additional internal hard drive?

French for 'It must be my imagination'?

What was the first Intel x86 processor with "Base + Index * Scale + Displacement" addressing mode?

Critique of timeline aesthetic

Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?

What is Niska's accent?

what is the sudo password for a --disabled-password user

US visa is under administrative processing, I need the passport back ASAP

A ​Note ​on ​N!

What is the most expensive material in the world that could be used to create Pun-Pun's lute?

Why do games have consumables?

Map of water taps to fill bottles

How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?

Symbolic Multivariate Distribution

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?

What route did the Hindenburg take when traveling from Germany to the U.S.?

Does holding a wand and speaking its command word count as V/S/M spell components?

How do I deal with a coworker that keeps asking to make small superficial changes to a report, and it is seriously triggering my anxiety?

Is the claim "Employers won't employ people with no 'social media presence'" realistic?

How to pronounce 'C++' in Spanish

How do I reattach a shelf to the wall when it ripped out of the wall?

What are the potential pitfalls when using metals as a currency?

The Defining Moment



Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers


How to deal with an unreasonable reviewer asking to cite irrelevant articles?Can a reviewer suggest references?How to respond to an editor's post-review comments suggesting major changes I'm not willing to make?Timely review process by reviewersIs it common for a journal to reject a paper after accepting it subject to minor revisions?My paper has been rejected again, what should I change?Reviewers want me to cite their barely related papersReferee wants me to do more experiments, but I already submitted these results to another journalShould you revise a manuscript when only two of the three reviewers provide a positive review?Editor's comments differ from those of reviewersJournal review failureCorrecting a paper that just came back from review, what should I do?













44















  1. A journal article I submitted to a highly reputable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.


  2. The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is pro forma and includes a line asking for any inappropriate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.


  3. Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two members of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.


My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inappropriate and reference it in our article ‒ "throw them a bone."



I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.



Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?



I'm interested in other people's experiences.










share|improve this question



















  • 48





    You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.

    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Mar 28 at 0:43






  • 1





    Closely related (especially F'x's answer): academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11923/…

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:48






  • 1





    Even more closely related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99745/…?

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:49











  • I have voted to close as "strongly depends on individual factors" since you seem to already understand the underlying principles and it really comes down to: what is your personal choice?

    – user2390246
    Mar 28 at 10:38











  • Thanks for those links - interesting, but a different question, in my view, due to the possibility that the editor and 2 reviewers are from the institution.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 11:12















44















  1. A journal article I submitted to a highly reputable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.


  2. The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is pro forma and includes a line asking for any inappropriate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.


  3. Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two members of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.


My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inappropriate and reference it in our article ‒ "throw them a bone."



I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.



Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?



I'm interested in other people's experiences.










share|improve this question



















  • 48





    You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.

    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Mar 28 at 0:43






  • 1





    Closely related (especially F'x's answer): academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11923/…

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:48






  • 1





    Even more closely related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99745/…?

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:49











  • I have voted to close as "strongly depends on individual factors" since you seem to already understand the underlying principles and it really comes down to: what is your personal choice?

    – user2390246
    Mar 28 at 10:38











  • Thanks for those links - interesting, but a different question, in my view, due to the possibility that the editor and 2 reviewers are from the institution.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 11:12













44












44








44


4






  1. A journal article I submitted to a highly reputable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.


  2. The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is pro forma and includes a line asking for any inappropriate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.


  3. Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two members of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.


My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inappropriate and reference it in our article ‒ "throw them a bone."



I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.



Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?



I'm interested in other people's experiences.










share|improve this question
















  1. A journal article I submitted to a highly reputable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.


  2. The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is pro forma and includes a line asking for any inappropriate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.


  3. Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two members of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.


My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inappropriate and reference it in our article ‒ "throw them a bone."



I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.



Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?



I'm interested in other people's experiences.







publications citations peer-review ethics






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 29 at 13:13









kyrill

1031




1031










asked Mar 28 at 0:27









doctorerdoctorer

452511




452511







  • 48





    You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.

    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Mar 28 at 0:43






  • 1





    Closely related (especially F'x's answer): academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11923/…

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:48






  • 1





    Even more closely related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99745/…?

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:49











  • I have voted to close as "strongly depends on individual factors" since you seem to already understand the underlying principles and it really comes down to: what is your personal choice?

    – user2390246
    Mar 28 at 10:38











  • Thanks for those links - interesting, but a different question, in my view, due to the possibility that the editor and 2 reviewers are from the institution.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 11:12












  • 48





    You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.

    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Mar 28 at 0:43






  • 1





    Closely related (especially F'x's answer): academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11923/…

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:48






  • 1





    Even more closely related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99745/…?

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 7:49











  • I have voted to close as "strongly depends on individual factors" since you seem to already understand the underlying principles and it really comes down to: what is your personal choice?

    – user2390246
    Mar 28 at 10:38











  • Thanks for those links - interesting, but a different question, in my view, due to the possibility that the editor and 2 reviewers are from the institution.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 11:12







48




48





You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.

– Andrés E. Caicedo
Mar 28 at 0:43





You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.

– Andrés E. Caicedo
Mar 28 at 0:43




1




1





Closely related (especially F'x's answer): academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11923/…

– Allure
Mar 28 at 7:48





Closely related (especially F'x's answer): academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11923/…

– Allure
Mar 28 at 7:48




1




1





Even more closely related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99745/…?

– Allure
Mar 28 at 7:49





Even more closely related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99745/…?

– Allure
Mar 28 at 7:49













I have voted to close as "strongly depends on individual factors" since you seem to already understand the underlying principles and it really comes down to: what is your personal choice?

– user2390246
Mar 28 at 10:38





I have voted to close as "strongly depends on individual factors" since you seem to already understand the underlying principles and it really comes down to: what is your personal choice?

– user2390246
Mar 28 at 10:38













Thanks for those links - interesting, but a different question, in my view, due to the possibility that the editor and 2 reviewers are from the institution.

– doctorer
Mar 28 at 11:12





Thanks for those links - interesting, but a different question, in my view, due to the possibility that the editor and 2 reviewers are from the institution.

– doctorer
Mar 28 at 11:12










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















51














If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.



So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.



A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).






share|improve this answer


















  • 35





    As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

    – Wolfgang Bangerth
    Mar 28 at 2:27






  • 2





    I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 3:14






  • 1





    @Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 5:50






  • 2





    @doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 12:12






  • 1





    This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/…

    – llama
    Mar 29 at 20:40


















42














(1) Your co-authors are correct in that you should strive to minimise friction in the review process. (2) Commenters here are correct that you should stick to the facts of the situation and not risk attempting to attribute speculative motivations, or identities, to the reviewers. (3) You are correct that you shouldn't reference papers that have no apparent relevance to your work.



So consequences that arise from the points above are:



(1) Don't even consider referring the issue to the editor. Firstly, you can deal with this solely within the bounds of the normal response to the reviews. Secondly, is it remotely possible that there is actually some relevance to the papers that the reviewers see but you don't? Imagine the small possibility that they are right and you are wrong, and the damage to your reputation and theirs by escalating this.



(2) Make no statements and take no actions other than to respond to the issue that you believe that the papers aren't relevant. Don't get clouded by things that you can't absolutely know, like intentions and identities.



(3) In your response, simply state that you haven't added the references, and DO NOT add any other claims about the reviewers' motivations. You just want this to be as friction-free as possible. To avoid conflict in a subsequent round of review, you can gently put the ball back in the reviewers' court. e.g. state something like this:




We thank the reviewer for the suggested reference. Unfortunately, on close reading we could not determine exactly which part of our argument it supported. Therefore, we have not added it to the manuscript at this stage, but would welcome any specific guidance as to how it could be incorporated.




This avoids you being confrontational, yet without "giving them a bone". If they want to push things, then they now have to jump through a hoop to make the link for you. I suspect the issue will just get dropped. But it also leaves the door open for you in the small chance that the reviewers have actually made an insight or connection that you have failed to see.



Finally, as there are major revisions requested, deal with those fully and constructively and in detail. The couple of sentences devoted to this issue will not seem important to the editor in that context.






share|improve this answer




















  • 10





    +1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

    – Dave L Renfro
    Mar 28 at 14:25






  • 1





    Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

    – Sander Heinsalu
    Mar 29 at 14:07


















6














Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).



The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him/her the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him/her to leave them out.



Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.






share|improve this answer

























  • Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 2:06


















1














There is no true motivations to insert inappropriate references in the paper, moreover being the reference system the only mechanism able to make the better works emerge.



Do not do that.



If you have a lot of time before the deadline, write to the reviewers cited asking some help in order to have evidence of the relevance, because you are not able to find it. You should write this in some plain manner, nothing alarmed or worried or whatever. And watch what answer returns to you.



If the deadline is too close, simply omit the references not truly relevant, writing to the reviewer something about that, argumenting that properly and having the organizer in CC.



Do not abandon ethics, because without it the Academia is something unuseful and very similar to mafia or similar organizations.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "415"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127171%2finappropriate-reference-requests-from-journal-reviewers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    51














    If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.



    So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.



    A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).






    share|improve this answer


















    • 35





      As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

      – Wolfgang Bangerth
      Mar 28 at 2:27






    • 2





      I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 3:14






    • 1





      @Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 5:50






    • 2





      @doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

      – Allure
      Mar 28 at 12:12






    • 1





      This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/…

      – llama
      Mar 29 at 20:40















    51














    If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.



    So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.



    A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).






    share|improve this answer


















    • 35





      As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

      – Wolfgang Bangerth
      Mar 28 at 2:27






    • 2





      I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 3:14






    • 1





      @Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 5:50






    • 2





      @doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

      – Allure
      Mar 28 at 12:12






    • 1





      This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/…

      – llama
      Mar 29 at 20:40













    51












    51








    51







    If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.



    So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.



    A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).






    share|improve this answer













    If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.



    So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.



    A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Mar 28 at 2:06









    AllureAllure

    36.1k19104160




    36.1k19104160







    • 35





      As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

      – Wolfgang Bangerth
      Mar 28 at 2:27






    • 2





      I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 3:14






    • 1





      @Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 5:50






    • 2





      @doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

      – Allure
      Mar 28 at 12:12






    • 1





      This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/…

      – llama
      Mar 29 at 20:40












    • 35





      As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

      – Wolfgang Bangerth
      Mar 28 at 2:27






    • 2





      I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 3:14






    • 1





      @Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 5:50






    • 2





      @doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

      – Allure
      Mar 28 at 12:12






    • 1





      This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/…

      – llama
      Mar 29 at 20:40







    35




    35





    As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

    – Wolfgang Bangerth
    Mar 28 at 2:27





    As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

    – Wolfgang Bangerth
    Mar 28 at 2:27




    2




    2





    I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 3:14





    I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 3:14




    1




    1





    @Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 5:50





    @Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 5:50




    2




    2





    @doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 12:12





    @doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

    – Allure
    Mar 28 at 12:12




    1




    1





    This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/…

    – llama
    Mar 29 at 20:40





    This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/…

    – llama
    Mar 29 at 20:40











    42














    (1) Your co-authors are correct in that you should strive to minimise friction in the review process. (2) Commenters here are correct that you should stick to the facts of the situation and not risk attempting to attribute speculative motivations, or identities, to the reviewers. (3) You are correct that you shouldn't reference papers that have no apparent relevance to your work.



    So consequences that arise from the points above are:



    (1) Don't even consider referring the issue to the editor. Firstly, you can deal with this solely within the bounds of the normal response to the reviews. Secondly, is it remotely possible that there is actually some relevance to the papers that the reviewers see but you don't? Imagine the small possibility that they are right and you are wrong, and the damage to your reputation and theirs by escalating this.



    (2) Make no statements and take no actions other than to respond to the issue that you believe that the papers aren't relevant. Don't get clouded by things that you can't absolutely know, like intentions and identities.



    (3) In your response, simply state that you haven't added the references, and DO NOT add any other claims about the reviewers' motivations. You just want this to be as friction-free as possible. To avoid conflict in a subsequent round of review, you can gently put the ball back in the reviewers' court. e.g. state something like this:




    We thank the reviewer for the suggested reference. Unfortunately, on close reading we could not determine exactly which part of our argument it supported. Therefore, we have not added it to the manuscript at this stage, but would welcome any specific guidance as to how it could be incorporated.




    This avoids you being confrontational, yet without "giving them a bone". If they want to push things, then they now have to jump through a hoop to make the link for you. I suspect the issue will just get dropped. But it also leaves the door open for you in the small chance that the reviewers have actually made an insight or connection that you have failed to see.



    Finally, as there are major revisions requested, deal with those fully and constructively and in detail. The couple of sentences devoted to this issue will not seem important to the editor in that context.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 10





      +1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

      – Dave L Renfro
      Mar 28 at 14:25






    • 1





      Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

      – Sander Heinsalu
      Mar 29 at 14:07















    42














    (1) Your co-authors are correct in that you should strive to minimise friction in the review process. (2) Commenters here are correct that you should stick to the facts of the situation and not risk attempting to attribute speculative motivations, or identities, to the reviewers. (3) You are correct that you shouldn't reference papers that have no apparent relevance to your work.



    So consequences that arise from the points above are:



    (1) Don't even consider referring the issue to the editor. Firstly, you can deal with this solely within the bounds of the normal response to the reviews. Secondly, is it remotely possible that there is actually some relevance to the papers that the reviewers see but you don't? Imagine the small possibility that they are right and you are wrong, and the damage to your reputation and theirs by escalating this.



    (2) Make no statements and take no actions other than to respond to the issue that you believe that the papers aren't relevant. Don't get clouded by things that you can't absolutely know, like intentions and identities.



    (3) In your response, simply state that you haven't added the references, and DO NOT add any other claims about the reviewers' motivations. You just want this to be as friction-free as possible. To avoid conflict in a subsequent round of review, you can gently put the ball back in the reviewers' court. e.g. state something like this:




    We thank the reviewer for the suggested reference. Unfortunately, on close reading we could not determine exactly which part of our argument it supported. Therefore, we have not added it to the manuscript at this stage, but would welcome any specific guidance as to how it could be incorporated.




    This avoids you being confrontational, yet without "giving them a bone". If they want to push things, then they now have to jump through a hoop to make the link for you. I suspect the issue will just get dropped. But it also leaves the door open for you in the small chance that the reviewers have actually made an insight or connection that you have failed to see.



    Finally, as there are major revisions requested, deal with those fully and constructively and in detail. The couple of sentences devoted to this issue will not seem important to the editor in that context.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 10





      +1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

      – Dave L Renfro
      Mar 28 at 14:25






    • 1





      Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

      – Sander Heinsalu
      Mar 29 at 14:07













    42












    42








    42







    (1) Your co-authors are correct in that you should strive to minimise friction in the review process. (2) Commenters here are correct that you should stick to the facts of the situation and not risk attempting to attribute speculative motivations, or identities, to the reviewers. (3) You are correct that you shouldn't reference papers that have no apparent relevance to your work.



    So consequences that arise from the points above are:



    (1) Don't even consider referring the issue to the editor. Firstly, you can deal with this solely within the bounds of the normal response to the reviews. Secondly, is it remotely possible that there is actually some relevance to the papers that the reviewers see but you don't? Imagine the small possibility that they are right and you are wrong, and the damage to your reputation and theirs by escalating this.



    (2) Make no statements and take no actions other than to respond to the issue that you believe that the papers aren't relevant. Don't get clouded by things that you can't absolutely know, like intentions and identities.



    (3) In your response, simply state that you haven't added the references, and DO NOT add any other claims about the reviewers' motivations. You just want this to be as friction-free as possible. To avoid conflict in a subsequent round of review, you can gently put the ball back in the reviewers' court. e.g. state something like this:




    We thank the reviewer for the suggested reference. Unfortunately, on close reading we could not determine exactly which part of our argument it supported. Therefore, we have not added it to the manuscript at this stage, but would welcome any specific guidance as to how it could be incorporated.




    This avoids you being confrontational, yet without "giving them a bone". If they want to push things, then they now have to jump through a hoop to make the link for you. I suspect the issue will just get dropped. But it also leaves the door open for you in the small chance that the reviewers have actually made an insight or connection that you have failed to see.



    Finally, as there are major revisions requested, deal with those fully and constructively and in detail. The couple of sentences devoted to this issue will not seem important to the editor in that context.






    share|improve this answer















    (1) Your co-authors are correct in that you should strive to minimise friction in the review process. (2) Commenters here are correct that you should stick to the facts of the situation and not risk attempting to attribute speculative motivations, or identities, to the reviewers. (3) You are correct that you shouldn't reference papers that have no apparent relevance to your work.



    So consequences that arise from the points above are:



    (1) Don't even consider referring the issue to the editor. Firstly, you can deal with this solely within the bounds of the normal response to the reviews. Secondly, is it remotely possible that there is actually some relevance to the papers that the reviewers see but you don't? Imagine the small possibility that they are right and you are wrong, and the damage to your reputation and theirs by escalating this.



    (2) Make no statements and take no actions other than to respond to the issue that you believe that the papers aren't relevant. Don't get clouded by things that you can't absolutely know, like intentions and identities.



    (3) In your response, simply state that you haven't added the references, and DO NOT add any other claims about the reviewers' motivations. You just want this to be as friction-free as possible. To avoid conflict in a subsequent round of review, you can gently put the ball back in the reviewers' court. e.g. state something like this:




    We thank the reviewer for the suggested reference. Unfortunately, on close reading we could not determine exactly which part of our argument it supported. Therefore, we have not added it to the manuscript at this stage, but would welcome any specific guidance as to how it could be incorporated.




    This avoids you being confrontational, yet without "giving them a bone". If they want to push things, then they now have to jump through a hoop to make the link for you. I suspect the issue will just get dropped. But it also leaves the door open for you in the small chance that the reviewers have actually made an insight or connection that you have failed to see.



    Finally, as there are major revisions requested, deal with those fully and constructively and in detail. The couple of sentences devoted to this issue will not seem important to the editor in that context.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 28 at 5:16

























    answered Mar 28 at 5:10









    Michael MacAskillMichael MacAskill

    621410




    621410







    • 10





      +1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

      – Dave L Renfro
      Mar 28 at 14:25






    • 1





      Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

      – Sander Heinsalu
      Mar 29 at 14:07












    • 10





      +1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

      – Dave L Renfro
      Mar 28 at 14:25






    • 1





      Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

      – Sander Heinsalu
      Mar 29 at 14:07







    10




    10





    +1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

    – Dave L Renfro
    Mar 28 at 14:25





    +1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

    – Dave L Renfro
    Mar 28 at 14:25




    1




    1





    Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

    – Sander Heinsalu
    Mar 29 at 14:07





    Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

    – Sander Heinsalu
    Mar 29 at 14:07











    6














    Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).



    The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him/her the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him/her to leave them out.



    Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 2:06















    6














    Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).



    The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him/her the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him/her to leave them out.



    Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 2:06













    6












    6








    6







    Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).



    The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him/her the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him/her to leave them out.



    Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.






    share|improve this answer















    Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).



    The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him/her the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him/her to leave them out.



    Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 2 at 4:13









    smacdonald

    1053




    1053










    answered Mar 28 at 1:00









    user847982user847982

    1,251412




    1,251412












    • Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 2:06

















    • Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

      – doctorer
      Mar 28 at 2:06
















    Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 2:06





    Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

    – doctorer
    Mar 28 at 2:06











    1














    There is no true motivations to insert inappropriate references in the paper, moreover being the reference system the only mechanism able to make the better works emerge.



    Do not do that.



    If you have a lot of time before the deadline, write to the reviewers cited asking some help in order to have evidence of the relevance, because you are not able to find it. You should write this in some plain manner, nothing alarmed or worried or whatever. And watch what answer returns to you.



    If the deadline is too close, simply omit the references not truly relevant, writing to the reviewer something about that, argumenting that properly and having the organizer in CC.



    Do not abandon ethics, because without it the Academia is something unuseful and very similar to mafia or similar organizations.






    share|improve this answer



























      1














      There is no true motivations to insert inappropriate references in the paper, moreover being the reference system the only mechanism able to make the better works emerge.



      Do not do that.



      If you have a lot of time before the deadline, write to the reviewers cited asking some help in order to have evidence of the relevance, because you are not able to find it. You should write this in some plain manner, nothing alarmed or worried or whatever. And watch what answer returns to you.



      If the deadline is too close, simply omit the references not truly relevant, writing to the reviewer something about that, argumenting that properly and having the organizer in CC.



      Do not abandon ethics, because without it the Academia is something unuseful and very similar to mafia or similar organizations.






      share|improve this answer

























        1












        1








        1







        There is no true motivations to insert inappropriate references in the paper, moreover being the reference system the only mechanism able to make the better works emerge.



        Do not do that.



        If you have a lot of time before the deadline, write to the reviewers cited asking some help in order to have evidence of the relevance, because you are not able to find it. You should write this in some plain manner, nothing alarmed or worried or whatever. And watch what answer returns to you.



        If the deadline is too close, simply omit the references not truly relevant, writing to the reviewer something about that, argumenting that properly and having the organizer in CC.



        Do not abandon ethics, because without it the Academia is something unuseful and very similar to mafia or similar organizations.






        share|improve this answer













        There is no true motivations to insert inappropriate references in the paper, moreover being the reference system the only mechanism able to make the better works emerge.



        Do not do that.



        If you have a lot of time before the deadline, write to the reviewers cited asking some help in order to have evidence of the relevance, because you are not able to find it. You should write this in some plain manner, nothing alarmed or worried or whatever. And watch what answer returns to you.



        If the deadline is too close, simply omit the references not truly relevant, writing to the reviewer something about that, argumenting that properly and having the organizer in CC.



        Do not abandon ethics, because without it the Academia is something unuseful and very similar to mafia or similar organizations.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 29 at 16:51









        Rick ParkRick Park

        2824




        2824



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127171%2finappropriate-reference-requests-from-journal-reviewers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029