Case Summary
An original paper was submitted to a journal, peer reviewed, revised by the authors, and accepted by the manuscript editor. It was scheduled for publication 3 months later. After the paper was copyedited and typeset, the corresponding author was informed of the acceptance and was asked to proofread the article. After 2 weeks, however, the corresponding author requested that the paper be withdrawn. The chief editor asked for an explanation and brought the case to COPE Forum, noting that the journal does not charge article processing fees.
Question(s) for the COPE Forum
- Significant resources have been provided to improve the paper. Should we accept the withdrawal?
- Is there anything else we should do if the authors do not respond to our request for an explanation?
论坛建议
该论坛询问为什么作者在副本之前没有被告知接受，以及他们是否已分配版权或同意出版。如果期刊流程是退出的原因，则可能会询问作者，或者他们在论文中发现了一个严重错误。最终，提交人可能要求撤回文件，编辑必须履行要求。期刊应审查其流程并确保与作者的沟通很清楚，也许利用会员的应对期刊审计工具//m.lang0752.com/news/new-cope-audit。
Case Discussion
This archived COPE Forum case is categorised under two COPE Core Practices:
- Allegations of Misconduct, which states: “Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher’s attention. Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. Policies should include how to handle allegations from whistleblowers.”
- Journal Management, which states: “A well-described and implemented infrastructure is essential, including the business model, policies, processes and software for efficient running of an editorially independent journal, as well as the efficient management and training of editorial boards and editorial and publishing staff.”
The misconduct that might be involved depends on the corresponding author’s reason for the late withdrawal. Some situations may justify withdrawal but, akin to rejecting a manuscript submission because of misconduct, the editor also has a duty to follow up (eg, with the institution and possibly other editors). The level of publishing experience of the author can be taken into account, as well as the possibility of honest error in the publication process or in the paper’s content such that the conclusions are invalidated.COPE’s flowchartscan be helpful here, in addition to guidance such as “研究机构与研究诚信案件之间的合作：出版伦理委员会（应对）的指导”.
原因可能包括事先提交给另一个杂志，这可能会更快地发布或有（更高）的日志影响因素。此外，本文或类似的文件可能已经发布，在提交期间代表冗余出版物。论坛询问作者是否实际上同意出版。如果作者不同意原始或修订的提交，或者如果有虚假的作者索赔，更正可能是退出的替代方案，但相应的作者的行为将需要调查。如果任何作者不同意编辑和排版的版本，则需要由作者争议/ s将由作者解决，并可与日记协商重新编辑。如果相应的作者对工作的诚信有信念，并且嫌疑人共同作者的不当行为，如制造，伪造，抄袭，不道德的研究或偏离利益冲突，这些问题也需要追求。可以要求该机构调查或审查他们在学术出版中的培训。
The authors might confess that they plan to take their now-improved paper to a journal that has a (higher) journal impact factor. A previous case brought to COPE Forum (case 17-19,Unethical withdrawal after acceptance to maximize the 'impact factor'）描述提交人如何要求提取公认的文件，以便将其转移到出版商投资组合中的期刊，这些缺陷因素是影响因素。出版商希望禁止所有作者再次提交到他们的期刊，以及征收延迟退出的完整文章处理费（APC）“以发挥影响因子游戏”。作者的机构调查了此案后，出版商将不当行为归因于作者缺乏经验。虽然作者坚持退出，但出版商接受了论坛的采用教育方法的建议，并没有向APC收取费用。
An educational approach could be used in the present case if the situation is similar. However, the editor noted that the journal does not have an APC. Unfortunately, some authors may take advantage of this operational model to try to receive free peer-review guidance (and even editing) of submitted papers. In discussing案例18-11（休闲提交数量增加），论坛建议实施小额提交费，以涵盖行政费用和妨碍“休闲”或低质量的提交。费用政策和金额必须在提交说明中明确说明。
如果相应的作者没有回复，编辑器将不得不推迟该文章的发布，因为所有作者都需要首先批准发布。同样，如果没有由所有作者签署的书面请求，则不能撤回一篇论文，这些请求包括其退出原因。编辑必须继续试图从相应作者那里获取撤军信，如果这失败，可以询问一个共同作者。并非所有作者都知道预期的提款，并且他们最终可能会扭转决定。编辑还必须提醒作者，他们无法在其他地方提交文件，直到期刊向他们发送正式提款通知。应该提供截止日期，如果仍然没有回复，则可以要求机构尝试追踪作者/秒。在最后期限后，本文可能需要撤回默认情况下，作者/机构将被告知令人失望的结果，并提醒预期的未来出版礼仪。
在等待一位作者回复,编辑器开启t wish to do Internet searches to see if the paper or a similar one has been published elsewhere and to check for plagiarism. The situation may be more complicated if the journal routinely assigns a DOI (digital object identifier) to accepted but unedited manuscripts and uploads them as an online-first version to their website and/or a repository. The timestamp would indicate whether the journal published the paper first. The editor/s of other publications then need to be informed. As outlined in theCOPE Retraction Guidelines, instead of issuing a Notice of Redundant Publication in the first published version and Notice of Retraction in the later version/s, the editor could use an Expression of Concern to alert readers of possible redundancy and ongoing investigation. If the online-first version is the later (redundant) one, or contains plagiarism, an Expression of Concern could be issued while the editor investigates whether withdrawal is appropriate. Journals may have different policies for withdrawing/retracting online-first documents from their journal and/or repositories, compared with retracting the final version (version of record), which is not removed but appropriately watermarked. However, specific policies should exist and be disclosed on journal websites.
There are some legal implications. As raised by the Forum, the editor would need to check whether the authors had assigned copyright, if applicable, or a publishing licence or other publishing agreement. The wording and conditions of such documents need close scrutiny, particularly related to manuscript version/s at submission, acceptance, or publication, and what happens at withdrawal or retraction. In a previous case (19-06, Dual submission and editor’s failure to take action), the copyright for a paper published in a journal was held by another journal because the authors did not formally withdraw their earlier submission.
这种情况说明了如果编辑部流程和通信不清楚或不一致的情况会发生什么。第二个相关的应对核心实践是Journal Management。COPE recommends that all processes and policies be transparently and publicly disclosed on a publication’s website and that all publishing personnel be well trained. Other places where relevant policies and guidelines can be mentioned or linked to, as a reminder, include the manuscript submission platform, official forms (eg, author declarations, copyright transfer if applicable), and correspondence at key stages (eg, submission acknowledgement, first peer-review decision, acceptance letter).
There should be clear processes and policies for all areas of scholarly publication, including manuscript submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication stages. Guidelines should include topics such as authorship, intellectual property, maximising reproducibility and minimising bias, withdrawals/corrections, complaints/appeals, business practices, and any fees and waivers. In fact, publishers and editors should check they adhere to the all10 COPE Core Practices, which are aligned with the 16 internationalPrinciples of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing。
Although COPE no longer publishes any codes of practice/conduct per se, publishers and publications are expected to use and link to the COPE Core Practices, guidance, and resources when creating their own guidelines and codes of practice/conduct. COPE publisher and editor members can routinely check their publication policies against theCOPE Journal Auditand go through theCOPE e-Learningmodules. Non-members and novice editors can use COPE’s guidance contained in educational blogs in pastCOPE Digests, the infographicGeneral Approach to Publication Ethics for the Editorial Office, and新编辑的道德编辑的简短指南。
Authors, and publication staff, should be clearly informed of the journal’s processes and kept up-to-date with the progress of submission and production, so as to ensure ethical and timely publication. The staffing model and business model used and who communicates with the authors should be explained on the journal’s website, together with ethics guidelines, typical workflows, timelines, and average processing and production times. The presented case contains a few red flags to do with journal procedures that may need review and improvement. Indeed, the Forum queried whether the journal process was to blame for the withdrawal decision.
首先,“m主编告诉论坛anuscript editor” accepted the manuscript after peer review and revision. This suggests that editorial decision-making is delegated to others. Different journals do have different gate-keeping structures, and the model used should be clearly explained to all. Commonly, each manuscript is assigned to a handling editor (also named academic editor, section editor, or manuscript editor, although the latter term is also used for staff copyeditors). The handling editor could be the chief editor, a senior/associate/assistant editor, an editorial/advisory board member, or a staff editor such as a managing/executive editor. This person identifies and may contact peer reviewers, assesses peer review reports, and makes a recommendation for the final decision on a paper. A handling editor who is not the chief editor might be given authority to make the final decision, referring to the chief editor only if there are problems. The handling editor may also correspond with the authors, or this is done by a staff or managing/executive editor.
It is unclear in this case if and when the authors were informed of manuscript acceptance and whether they were told of the publication plan. If the peer review, revision, and rereview process already took a long time, then adding 3 months to the timeline before notifying an author of the outcome is unreasonable. Authors should also be provided with a contact method and dedicated contact person to enquire about their submission, and replies should be timely. Author instructions should explain that a formal rejection notice is needed before submission elsewhere. Novice authors may mistakenly believe their paper has been rejected and may submit elsewhere if they have not been informed of the outcome after a few months and cannot successfully reach the editorial office.
Second, it is unclear in this case why it took the corresponding author 2 weeks to contact the office after receiving the proofs. Authors are commonly given only 48 hours to approve their proofs, although the time can be extended if there has been substantive in-house copyediting or if they need more time. If no deadline or comprehensive instructions were given, the author may not have known it was possible to ask for more time or for a re-edit. The in-house editing may have been extensive and present a challenge for all authors to check and comment on, especially if they did not agree to all the edits. The method of marking up proofs may have been unclear or too difficult to do. Periodically checking in-house production processes, communications, and user experience is recommended.
最后，期刊应该积极主动检查其预防措施，以尽量减少误解和未来问题。员工工作流程和培训材料可以审查;可以鼓励工作人员在底部订阅COPE摘要COPE website。电子邮件可以copi通讯作者ed to all authors, and author contribution declarations could be collected. The presence or absence of any simultaneous submissions, prior presentations/publications of similar work, and any posted preprints should also be declared. Journals should have a clear policy on unique submission, what counts as prior publication, and rejection and withdrawal procedures. If anomalous cases or surges in misconduct arise, the editor can use an editorial to remind potential authors of journal policies and the conduct expected of both authors and editorial staff.
Trevor Laneon behalf of the COPE Education Subcommittee
In our March issue of Digest Deborah Poff, COPE Chair, shares guidance and cases relevant to anyone who is new to publication ethics issues or needs a refresher. Following our recent Forum, we'd love to hear your views relating to editing of peer review comments in our survey. The results of the survey, together with the Forum discussion and comments on our website, will inform a COPE discussion document on the topic bringing together the shared views. Plus the latest publication ethics news as gathered by COPE Council.