We received a claim that several authors were removed from an article published in one of our journals before the article was submitted. None of those said to have been removed were acknowledged.
索赔人要求撤回。他们说,这篇文章之前曾被提交给其他期刊,将他们列为作者。他们提供了他们所说的提交给另一家出版商的文章的早期版本,其中列出了其他作者,包括他们自己。这些文章都是一样的,只是在语言上略有不同。他们提供了他们所说的来自其他期刊的拒绝信,包括其他作者。
申请人不愿意透露姓名的表达ed concern about repercussions; we explained the claim could not otherwise be investigated by the institution. They agreed we could contact the authors and institution. We did, and the claimant stated the authors threatened them. The submitting author said the claimant should not have been an author and the claimant agreed to this, and provided signed statements from the other removed authors agreeing to being removed. We contacted these removed authors and they each confirmed they participated in the work, but did not want to be listed as authors.
提交的提交人没有向我们表明索赔人同意他不是提交人。索赔人告诉我们,其中一人说,他们收到了一份用英语签署的书面陈述,而英语不是他们的母语。
我们要求该机构进行调查。几个月后,机构委员会通知我们他们的决定:索赔人提供了一份电子邮件声明,同意不被列为作者;我们出版的作者名单是正确的;申请人将因损害该机构的声誉而受到专业处罚。
我们要求查看索赔人的电子邮件副本,其中他们同意不成为作者,但尽管一再要求,但没有提供。机构联系人告诉我们,他们已经离职,并指示我们联系文章的资深作者。索赔人告诉我们,这一早先的陈述适用于另一件物品。索赔人说,我们应该自己调查这一索赔,如果不这样做,我们会使他们面临负面后果;他们建议对我们采取法律行动。我们让他们参考COPE指南“出版后增加额外作者的请求”。他们表示将考虑对该机构采取法律行动。bob官方app
我们通过另一个联系方式告知该机构,对于不符合作者资格标准的投稿人,我们将予以承认,并且我们确认调查是保密的,因此不会影响他们的声誉;我们没有收到答复。
COPE论坛的问题
• Could the claim involving authorship have been made anonymously?
•在涉及作者和/或机构之前,我们是否可以进一步调查?
•在处理不合作或可能有偏见的机构审查委员会时,应对规则是否应该修订?
•我们现在还有什么可以或应该做的吗?
The Forum asked if there is a national body or research integrity office that the journal could contact and ask them to investigate?
The Forum agreed that it is almost impossible to deal with an authorship dispute without revealing the names of those involved, and that there was little else the journal could have done under these circumstances. The Forum did not believe the journal could have investigated any more.
《华尔街日报》可以借此机会向该机构表示,他们希望所有机构合作,并为此类问题制定良好的程序,并提醒他们,他们最终对作者身份的决定负有公开责任。
一项建议是,该杂志可以考虑发表一份关切的表达,这可能使作者得到某种形式的承认,也可能促使该机构采取后续行动。
另一个建议是编辑就这个问题写一篇社论。
Dealing with uncooperative or potentially biased institutional review committees is an issue COPE could explore further with institutions.
《华尔街日报》试图联系监督机构,但没有得到回应。原告说,他们已经对提交人采取了法律行动。《华尔街日报》分别收到了一份关于文章内容的法律索赔,但无法核实索赔人的联系方式,他们也没有回应我们的询问。
Comments
我不知道与这一特殊情况有关的COPE指南,但我认为COPE应该联系索赔人,并告知他们COPE打算联系索赔机构。