2014年，我们收到了学术机构研究诚信官的沟通，告知我们，2013年在我们的日记中发表的文件包括伪造或制作数据。我们被告知，在调查之后，他们确定已经发生了科学的不当行为。
几天之内we received a communication from one of the authors of the paper (who is no longer at the institution) reiterating this assertion and providing some further explanation; that a former student had fabricated data and that it affected the paper (but providing no specifics).
Over the next week or so, other journals by the same publisher received similar notifications from the same author. Initially, we were presented with no information regarding who the perpetrator was or the specifics of the affected data. We were therefore unable to determine how severely affected the validity of the overall paper was and whether a retraction or correction was necessary.
我们的初步回复是从机构和作者申请进一步的信息。最初，我们被双方通知，由于联邦隐私法，他们无法透露与调查有关的任何细节，除了他们已经告诉我们的东西。与此同时，我们决定发布对由我们的出版商影响的所有四篇文章发表关注的表达，其中一定的通知详细说明我们所知道的某些并指出我们将从该机构寻求进一步的细节。
Sometime later we heard back from the institution providing further specific information (ie, outlining the fabricated data) for three of the four papers. Of these three papers, two are now in the process of being retracted, while an academic editor has been consulted to advise on whether the third should be retracted or corrected, based on the additional scientific information now available.
However, in regard to the fourth paper, published in our journal, we were told by the institution that no further information was available. The author who contacted us has not provided any specific information either. Therefore, we find ourselves unsure of how to proceed next, as we still do not know to what extent the conclusions in the paper are valid.
Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• Should we proceed with a retraction but simply state that we cannot provide further information (something we feel is unsatisfactory for our authors)?
• Should we instead leave the expression of concern online but update it to say that we will not be able to provide any further information?
• Does the Forum have any other suggestions?
论坛向编辑询问，如果该文件已通过美国研究诚信办公室（ORI）处理，因为他们在网站上发布了他们的调查结果。但是，与ORI相关的法律非常严格，也不允许分享信息，即使有机构，也是找出任何信息的唯一方法是看看联邦登记处发表的内容。编辑告诉论坛，没有关于Ori网站的信息。
One view was that, given the history of all of these papers, and the concerns about the data on this particular paper, the editor should err on the side of caution and retract the paper.
However, a more cautious approach was also suggested. COPE would advise that a retraction statement should be as informative as possible; a journal needs to give its readers a reason for the retraction. Hence, in the absence of further information, the editor may consider not retracting at the moment, but instead updating the Expression of Concern. The editor may want to explain that other papers have been retracted as a result of the same investigation but no further information is available on the current paper.
Another suggestion was to go back to the institution and insist that they provide further information on the validity of the data.
Following the discussion at the Forum, the editor decided that there was insufficient information available to support a retraction. Therefore, the current Expression of Concern remains on the record pending further communication from the institution concerned.