A manuscript was published in journal X, submitted by several co-authors, including one of the editors in chief of journal X, Dr A (the article was handled by another editor in chief at the journal). Another researcher, Dr B, has claimed that this article should be withdrawn because it contains unauthorized data from him (Dr B).
在几年以前ly, Drs A and B worked and published jointly, but at some point there appeared to be a divergence in points of view on the interpretation of results (obtained in a large part by Dr B and his team) in a manuscript co-written by both Drs A and B (and the teams of both Drs A and B). Dr A decided that Dr B and his team must agree to the publication of the manuscript or they would be removed from the co-author list. The paper was then submitted as an appendix in an internal report for their funding agency.
Later, a similar paper was published by Dr A and his team (only) with similar content to the previous disputed paper in journal X. Dr B and his team are acknowledged in the text but have not been asked or listed as co-authors. The paper contains the results from Dr B’s team, very important results, that people now refer to as from Dr A’s team.
B博士认为这是违反了良好科学实践规则，并提出了第三个独立党的建议。第三方承认违反了良好科学实践规则，并建议发布错误。博士拒绝同意一个错误，因为他的团队不一定希望成为共同作者，因为他们不同意解释。B博士希望将这篇文章撤回。
Question
What should the editor of journal X do?
论坛一致认为，目前的论文无法掌握其目前的形式 - 需要完成文献的某种形式的修正。很明显，数据是B博士的知识产权，但这基本上是一个作者争执，这取决于作者来解决它。虽然论文的结果并非争议，但编辑可以决定撤回纸张并告诉作者他们必须自己解决争端。因此，编辑可以向两个作者提出问题，并告诉他们，如果他们无法解决问题并要求他们找到他们同意遵守的独立仲裁员，可能会发生某种形式的剧烈行动。作为第三方已经参与其中，鉴于该第三方的决定，这两位作者都同意遵守这一第三方的决定，因为它是提交人的建议，他要求这第三方提出建议？提交人可能会更好的解决方案，以达成一个可以在案件中仲裁的另一个独立派对。
但如果作者不能达成任何协议，编辑可以建议作者B允许写一封信或文章，以解释他对结果的解释。
One other suggestion was to have a revised paper, with all of the authors listed, and with two separate discussions. The readers could then make up their mind which interpretation they preferred. However, the original paper would have to be retracted.
大多数人同意，前进的最佳方式是向双方提出问题，并告诉他们，除非提交人可以解决此案，否则编写期刊。
编辑与B博士进行了进一步的沟通。编辑再次解释说，这不是期刊的决定，而不是B，他的雇主和作者原理地理清。编辑器现在停止了与B博士相对应。
评论
Very strange outcome in this story ...
If the manuscript was co-written then both the authors have equal rights to publish it independent form each other. Or am i'm missing something??
I also fund the outcome surprising... why the editor stopped corresponding with Dr. B if "the current paper cannot stand in its present form—some form of correction of the literature needs to be done"?
I am surprised the editor would consider going forward with this as a serious publication. All authors must be in agreement, and we can't start claiming data that does not belong to us. It is a huge effort to design strategies for data collection, get funding, find participants/specimens, and collect and manage data. That must be respected and considered part of the dessimination effort. I agree with editorial decision as I interpreted it.
Very strange outcome in this story ...
The Editors published a manuscript. One Editor being a coauthor! Subsequently the Editors were informed about the wrongdoing.
Instead of retracting the paper, the Editors pose innocent and do nothing. Except tell the “whistleblower” to sort out the matter elsewhere. “The editor has now stopped corresponding with Dr B.”.
The paper should have been withdrawn immediately.
And the Editor print an apology to Dr. B & team.
非常可怕的故事。A博士偷走了B博士的结果并将数据发布为来自他/她的实验室。A博士应该放在监狱里。这是知识产权的简单盗窃。