Allegations of misconduct

2020年，一篇文章的相应作者在线发表了三年，此前发布了关于作者冲突的杂志，并解释说该机构要求收回。由于作者冲突通常不保证撤退，所以出版商请求提交人和作者关于冲突的进一步细节。作者提供了两种不同版本的大量裁员报告，从机构负责的研究调查委员会报告报告中提供了两份重型报告。由于该机构没有回应了几周，期刊发表了一个关注（EoC）的表达，并继续定期追逐该机构。

该机构最终回应表明这不是作者冲突，而是在相应作者的部分研究不当。期刊，出版商和机构的诚信官随后讨论了该研究结果。在会议之后，该机构提供了第三次重复委员会报告的第三个版本，该报告是对相应作者的多次指控进行了审查。该机构委员会结束了多次指控，影响多个出版物，包括在本期刊上的文章中：（1）影响九个数字和（2）中的一个不正确的机构动物护理和使用委员会（IACUC）议定书号的数据制造发表的文章和文章中描述的一些动物研究方法缺乏IACUC批准或实验在IACUC批准之前进行，这是针对日记政策的。期刊审议了这种足够的信息，继续进行文章的萎缩。

After informing the corresponding author of the retraction notice, the author responded that the conflict was an authorship dispute and that they have been the target of racial discrimination at the institution. The journal and publisher put the retraction notice on hold and asked the corresponding author for documentation they claimed would exonerate allegations of lack of IACUC approval. The author then provided an IACUC protocol and approval letter citing a different number than is published in the paper. The journal reviewed the author's documentation and confirmed that some procedures used in the article were not approved in the IACUC protocol provided by the author. However, the journal noted that the methods used were within the standards of accepted practices in the field and that the institution's recommended consequences (retraction) seemed more significant than those similar circumstances.

通讯提交人声称向NIH的研究诚信办公室报告了这一争议，并辞去了机构。期刊的缩回通知仍然存在
on hold.

Questions for the Forum

• 相应的作者称为机构机构的发现的有效性和动机。虽然期刊无法裁定种族主义的指控，但期刊如何保护自己是歧视的一部分（如果指控是真实的），同时也确保了发表的工作的有效性？
• What should the journal do with regard to the EOC, which is supposed to be temporary?
• 如果期刊没有撤回这篇文章，这应该对读者更加透明吗？

Author group A deposited a preprint onto a preprint server and simultaneously submitted the manuscript to journal A. Peer review in journal A took some considerable time, but the paper (paper A) was eventually published. During the long peer review of paper A, author group A noticed that another set of authors, author group B, had published paper B in journal B. While paper B was submitted several weeks after paper A (and after the preprint appeared), peer review in journal B was somewhat faster, and so paper B was published before paper A. Author group A suspect that some of the data and language in paper B was taken from their preprint, and that author group B had used this to "scoop" paper A. A citation to the preprint was given in paper B but author group A felt that this was only to guard author group B against accusations of plagiarism, and certainly did not assign full credit to their original discoveries.

作者组B组感觉作者把先进ntage of some key results in their preprint to accelerate some major points in paper B. Unfortunately, author group A did not raise this with journal B. Journal B has only found out about this through word of mouth. Journal B does not know exactly which paper they refer to.

Questions for the Forum

• 有没有案件在这里回答？
• Should the editor of journal B advise author group A (who remain anonymous to journal B, and who can only be contacted through one of the editors of journal B)
  that they should formally report the issue to journal B so that it can be investigated
  as a plagiarism case in a published manuscript?
• 什么措施杂志B可以帮助防止将来发生这种情况
  （例如，更好地培训编辑和审核人员识别问题）？

An invite for a review was made by journal A. The first revision was done six months after submission, and the second revision two months later. Three weeks after submission of the second revision, the editor’s decision was minor revision. At this point, the corresponding author, author X, informed the editor of journal A that the authors were reluctant to respond to the comments of the second reviewer. However, they did not formally decline to revise or withdraw their manuscript from journal A.

Then, author Y contacted the editor of journal B, a review journal which normally commissions its content, to ask if the review would fit into the scope of journal B. The editor of journal B agreed to a submission. He was aware that the review was previously submitted to journal A. Author Y indicated that he wanted to remove the article from journal A and publish it elsewhere. The editor of journal B sent the review for peer review.

两个月后，Journal A联系作者X的编辑为提交第三次修订的截止日期是临界A的截止日期。作者X接受了延长截止日志A的编辑提交的延期。在截止日期前一天，作者联系了Journal A从出版物中撤回论文，并提到审查是由杂志接受的。

A month earlier, after one round of peer review in journal B, the first revision of the review was accepted by journal B.

The editor of journal A contacted the editor of journal B, stating that there was simultaneous submission. The editor of journal B contacted their publisher, and the production process of the review was stopped. However, at this stage, it was too late to stop the “in press” version from appearing online. Journal B began an investigation and contacted journal A and author Y. Author Y said he was submitting the case to the ethics committee of his institution. Journal B decided to wait on a final decision until the report was received. Journal B communicated this to journal A. Meanwhile, journal A was concerned that the review was appearing as “in press” in journal B during the investigation. Journal B then temporarily withdrew the “in press” version of the review until a conclusion to the case was reached.

杂志B的结论是，这是一个同时提交的案例，而不瞄准重复的出版物。杂志B从作者Y获得了该机构伦理委员会的报告。该报告没有找到作者，因为他们没有向杂志提交修订，而本文在B.作者Y表示这篇文章作者希望在B.期刊B.期刊B.期刊上将报告转发给A.

Journal A would like journal B to keep the review as withdrawn. Journal A is also clear that it does not want to further consider publishing the review as a matter of principle.

Questions for the Forum

• Does the Forum agree with the conclusion of journal B that there has been simultaneous submission without aiming at duplicate publication?
• 论坛是否同意期刊A的结论，作者x（代表其他提交人）的不道德行为，因为他们没有正式撤回一系列杂志，等待审查是审查j杂志接受？
• 论坛是否同意提交人机构的伦理委员会达成的结论？
• 鉴于审查没有科学问题，并且没有重复的出版物，应该在第一个附注中发布审查，提到审查最初提交给杂志a？
• Should journal B keep the review as permanently withdrawn as there was simultaneous submission? If yes, could the Forum advise on relevant text for the note?
• Are there any other recommendations?