酋长编辑收到了批评了批评了期刊早期发布的论文的一封信。编辑首先告诉了这封信的作者，他将在批评批评作者后发表评论后的评论是有机会回应的机会。当由这封信的作者被问及时，他后来补充说，如果作者未能回复，他也会发布这封信。
本文的相应作者解释说，同一个人袭击了他集团的每一篇文章约5年，以至于他们已经充分回应了批评者，并在这种情况下再次这样做。他描绘了这封信作为一个腐烂和欺诈性的评论，并要求我们没有发布这封信，他认为这将是对科学的矛盾。
He attached to his email a correspondence with the editor of another journal, detailing a similar case for one of his previous articles. He also copied in four editors of other journals who received similar commentaries from the same person, as well as one opinion leader in the field. The four editors had rejected the letters and two had banned the author of the letters from publishing in their journal. One of these editors replied to confirm the story, stating that in his view, the letter he had received was not founded on fact, and backed the request not to publish this new commentary.
在这个阶段，我们的日记编辑联系了我作为管理编辑，询问他是否可以彻底拒绝这封信。我建议他可以，但只基于这封信的科学价值，而不是在其作者的历史上。他寄给了这封信，供审查给处理批评文件的助理编辑，谁简要得出结论，评论可能不值得出版。然后，编辑拒绝了这封信，最初提到了各种同行评审员，事实上只有一套短暂的评论。
The author of the letter was quite irate as, based on the editor’s initial replies, he expected his letter to be published in any case (with or without a response from the authors) and found the peer review process and decision letter that he received unsatisfactory. A first clarification of our position resulted in a long threatening point-by-point response, to which the editor responded by reasserting his position and clarifying again why the letter had been reviewed by a referee and himself and subsequently rejected.
The author of the letter then changed tactics and sent the publisher a rather libellous letter in which he argued that the editor is incompetent, was not impartial and was influenced by the author of the article; that the author of the paper and the peer reviewer (whose identity he does not know) have undisclosed conflicts of interest; and that opposite interests and prevalent opinions, relayed by a mainstream advocacy group and the WHO, colluded to silence him, a whistleblower. One of the assumed conflicts of interest mentioned involve the head of an institution from which the authors received a grant and is therefore very indirect. Another, however, relates to a global advocacy group, endorsed by the WHO and which seems to reflect the predominant opinion in the field, and which the authors presumably belong to. The corresponding author of the paper calls this group a forum for exchange on the topic, but it has a clear health policy agenda. The authors did not mention this in their declaration of interest.
Our publisher informed him that she was taking his concerns seriously and would ask me to investigate in accordance with COPE’s guidelines, particularly in relation to our disclosure policy. Although the author of the letter accused us of being in breach of the COPE policy on fair peer review in an earlier correspondence, he then replied that in this case COPE’s ‘concepts’ are meaningless and, for example, anonymous peer review or impartiality are impossible, since he is the only researcher “who has exposed a long series of frauds” on the topic. He went on to reiterate his request that we (a) do not contact the authors of the paper he criticised (he was initially fine with the authors responding to his critique), (b) ask referees specifically if they belong to the advocacy group discussed above and (c) send, if needed, his blinded manuscript to ‘independent’ (from the advocacy group mentioned and industries) reviewers, of which he proposes three names.
我们没有回复最后一封电子邮件，并决定寻求应对如何最佳关闭的建议以及我们应该更先做的事情。特别是，我对您的意见感兴趣：
- 编辑如何与第一个信件的作者一起通知？我们处理案件的主要弱点是什么？
— if the authors of the criticised paper belong to an advocacy group, should they disclose this in their declaration of interest section?
- 如何回应关于不公平同行审查指控的信的作者，并拒绝对蒙蔽的同行审查制度？
- 我们应该，我们如何，检查这封信的作者是否真的试图对普遍意见做出有效点？
— on the other hand, should he have an undisclosed agenda, should we take any action against him?
他的信件和电子邮件往往是令人难以置信的，基于假设，诽谤性和威胁，他似乎属于不公开它的相反倡导团体。此外，他对文献的大部分贡献是由评论批评文章的评论，但他似乎并不似乎自己发布任何原创研究。
守则的行为规范指出，编辑必须愿意考虑对其杂志发表的工作的批评。但是，编辑需要决定这是否是“Cogent批评”。论坛建议这里有三个问题：（1）编辑是否应该发布这封信;（2）提交人未公开的利益冲突;（3）网站上编辑的诽谤。
关于编辑是否应该发布这封信，论坛指出，编辑有责任发布信函，除非他们是事实不正确或诽谤，而编辑是作出该决定的责任。论坛的一些成员认为，编辑应该转向发布所有内容，而其他人则指出，不同的期刊中有不同类型的字母，并且并不总是适合发布。但是，所有人都同意编辑不应做出虚假索赔（说这封信将在作者或没有作者的回应中发表，然后回到该决定），并提出期刊需要收紧其编辑过程。期刊应该有一个清晰的处理字母的过程。他们同行评论吗？发布信件的决定应仅基于其学术优点。
关于提交人的未公开利益冲突，编辑应直接与提交人联系，并要求他们回答这一指控，并强调非财政利益冲突也非常重要。如果它归还作者确实存在利益冲突，编辑可以发布更正。编辑还应在此问题上查看期刊的政策。
On the third point, if an editor is defamed on a blog or website, what can he do? Some suggested a dignified silence as the best option as otherwise it can fuel the problem and encourage more debate. However, all agreed that if the accusations are potentially libellous then the editor should seek legal advice.
我联系了这封信的作者，让他知道他的案件在Cope论坛上讨论，并重申我们的决定不发布信。大多数成员呈现，如果并非全部，则支持其主编的观点可以拒绝他自行决定的信或评论。我简要介绍了讨论的概述，并解释说，应对兴趣宣言应该仅与直接潜在的利益冲突有关。这意味着批评论文中的披露令人满意且适当。
The remaining question concerned the author’s role within an ‘advocacy group’.
我说我们会联系作者并要求他澄清本集团的目的，他们参与其中以及他们是否认为它可能是利益冲突。然后，我们将评估他们对目前关于宣言声明的要求的回应。
Dr C quickly sent a couple of inflammatory emails in his usual style, where he repeated that there is a “universal conflict of interest that must be disclosed” because 90% of authors, editors and reviewers belong to the same bias ‘advocacy group.’ He then went on to contradict himself and, in my view, invalidate his only claim which may have had some merit:
“I would like to clarify that [the group] is absolutely not an ‘advocacy/regulatory group’. To take a modern example, it is something like Facebook where authors [...] advertise and publish the kind of publication that I have criticised in details for their flaws. In that case I don’t really see what the problem is.”
I intended to get the author’s opinion on this but have not pursued the matter.
从C博士开始，我没有听到任何东西，因为案件已关闭。