Just a quick question, probably for those who are midcareer and beyond, sparked by an e-mail exchange with a colleague a few days ago, regarding a dilemma s/he is having:
If you received a request from a journal or a press to review a book or article manuscript written by a junior person whom you considered a friend, or at least a friendly acquaintance, what would be your response (assuming that you had time to take on the job, and felt qualified to review the material)?
(a) Accept the review job. I am able to separate my personal feelings from how I evaluate a scholar's work.
(b) Accept the review job, even though I know I'm likely to be a bit biased in favor of this person. Publications can be make-or-break for tenure, and this is an opportunity for me to help out someone whose work is solid/good/really excellent.
(c) Decline to review the MS, because I know I'd be biased, and while no review is entirely impartial, this might be a bit too close.
(d) Decline to review the MS, because I'm so hyper-aware of my biases that I fear I'd overcompensate on the side of critiquing more harshly than would a less interested observer.
(e) Review the MS, because even though (c) or (d) may apply, most subfields are fairly small, and we're all going to end up reviewing each other's manuscripts sooner or later.
(f) Pretend I never got the request.