We received an article which was accepted and published after an uneventful peer review process. The article was apparently written by seven authors from two universities. As part of our routine processes, all co-authors were alerted to a submission via the email addresses provided by the submitting author.
Some time after the article had been published, we received an email from the corresponding author (author B) to say that the paper had been submitted without his, or his co-authors, knowledge or permission. Author B says that the work reported is a result of a collaborative study between the authors listed on the paper, but that they had not yet agreed to prepare the reported work for publication. Author B claims that the first author of the article (author A) submitted the article to our journal under author B’s name using a fake email account.
Author A has written to us independently to say that they submitted the article in the name of author B using a fake email account and signed the Licence to Publish in the name of author B without the consent or knowledge of author B. Author A and author B have requested that the published article be withdrawn. Author B claims that there are mistakes in the article and that the co-authors disagree with some of the viewpoints in the article.
如有必要，编辑计划在大学的支持下进行调查，以确定发表的文章是否存在科学上的缺陷，并正在审查应采取何种适当行动来解决所描述的作者身份问题。
Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• If the article is scientifically sound, and therefore does not warrant retraction to protect the accuracy of the scientific record, what action should the editor take to address the claims made by author B regarding author A’s actions?
The Forum suggested this was a copyright issue. Copyright normally resides with the publisher, but if the publisher has not received permission from the authors then the publisher does not have a license to publish, and the paper must be removed from the website. This is also a case of serious deception. In addition, there may be data protection issues on the basis of the accuracy of the data as the author names are listed on the paper without their consent. The Forum suggested the journal may wish to seek legal advice.
一个建议是收回论文，如果许可问题得到解决，就重新发表。论坛的大多数人都同意，在目前的状态下，该论文不应该再由出版商主持。该文件应被删除，并在其地方放一个说明与事件的解释。然后，该机构需要在这个问题上发挥带头作用。机构有责任调查不当行为问题。网站上的说明应保留到该机构的调查结果。
后discussion at the Forum, the editor sought legal advice from the publisher and contacted the institution concerned to request an investigation. The editor has now received a formal response from the institution which stated that the institution had directed author B to consult with the co-authors listed to clarify the authorship of the article concerned and provide an updated licence to publish to the journal. The journal is currently waiting on correspondence from author B regarding these matters.
Follow up (May 2016)
The Editor has now received an updated licence to publish, and the author group have reached an agreement on the correct authorship for the article concerned. The journal will publish a correction notice to update the authorship and now considers the matter closed.
评论
为什么要保留手稿？即使在大学内部解决了这个问题之后，这对这位冒牌作家来说也太光荣了。这是根本没有做到，在我看来，论文应该正式撤回出版商和假冒通讯作者应该（严重）纠正他的大学。
What actions were taken against the person using a fake email address?
I presume Author A is now not on the author list for the new version of the article?