Author non-disclosure by editor in chief

Please note, this case is being submitted by the Publishing Director of the journal based on the advice of a senior COPE member because it relates to the conduct of the editor in chief of the journal. The editor in chief of the journal is aware that the case is being submitted.

2009年11月提交了一封投诉信，涉及在我们的一家期刊上发表的一篇社论，该社论完全由主编撰写。写投诉信的人坚持要保护他的匿名性，不让主编知道。这是因为在他看来，他以前是社论中提到的组织因干涉他们的业务而提起的骚扰诉讼（后来失败）的受害者。

这封信由两个阿莱gations: (i) that the content of the editorial contained numerous inaccuracies and unsubstantiated accusations and (ii) that the editorial had an undeclared conflict of interest as an individual (Dr X) involved with the organisation that the editorial mentioned had influenced the writing and appearance of the content without Dr X’s name being disclosed

The editor in chief was advised that this communication had been received and was informed about both allegations (on an anonymised basis). The Editor responded to state that Dr X was well known to him and that he had been asked to help with the editorial because of his superior use of English. Dr X had originally been asked to be a co-author of the editorial but had refused. The editor stated that it was true that Dr X had had some influence on this editorial but the content of this editorial was fully his intellectual product for which he bore all responsibility.

编辑断然否认存在未披露的利益冲突，最后要求提出指控的人公开此事，并致函编辑。在我们的回复中，我们建议，既然X博士帮助完善了文本，他们的名字应该在社论的结尾宣布，特别是因为X博士参与了社论提到的组织。我们要求编辑进一步澄清X博士参与社论的情况。编辑回答说，X博士是他的论文的审稿人，作为编辑，他不同意将X博士参与撰写社论的情况向期刊读者作一般性甚至具体的披露。他重申，如果提出指控的人向编辑提交一封信，他将准备进行公开辩论。

We responded to the editor to say we believed that the editor was confusing his role as author and editor. That as an editor, since he authored an article in which he viewed Dr X as taking the role of expert reviewer, then the paper should not have been handled by him as editor but should have been passed to another editor to make the decision about whether the editorial was suitable for publication. As the author of the article, he was required to disclose the involvement of Dr X who helped him to write it.

The editor responded and stated that he agreed there was some confusion between the roles of editor and author but that he did not see how the roles could be separated and reiterated that he would only respond to the allegations if a letter to the editor was openly submitted to him.

Despite further communication with the editor, no further progress has been made and the matter has been left with us advising the editor that it is not acceptable to us as owner and publisher of the journal to have published an editorial authored by the editor in chief who has subsequently admitted to us in writing that there was a further individual involved in the writing and preparation of the editorial whose name has not been disclosed to the readers of the journal. We advised the editor that if he remained unwilling to comply with our request that we would have to consider what further action to take which may involve taking this matter to COPE.

With regard to the second allegation, we advised the editor that we would be obtaining independent evaluation of the content of the article. The editorial was sent out to three independent experts. The outcome of these was that one reviewer supported publication of the editorial whereas the other two opposed publication. Given this mixture of reviews, we have not taken this matter any further and are still hopeful that the person making the initial anonymous complaint may still decide to write a letter to the editor to bring his concerns into the open.

We would appreciate the advice of COPE as to what next steps we should now take.