Each month, COPE Council members find and share publication ethics news. This month the news includes articles on corrections, diversity and inclusion, authorship, and more.
Ethical considerations around book publishing
Periodically, COPE gets requests for the development of discussion documents, guidance and flowcharts on publication ethics issues related to book publishing. Many of our members publish both journals and books, and a number of these members reference COPE guidance on journal publishing and ethics as providing useful information on particular topics related to research and publication ethics.
机构最终回应表示was not an authorship conflict but research misconduct on the part of the corresponding author. The journal, publisher, and institution's integrity officer subsequently met to discuss the findings. Following the meeting, the institution provided a third version of a heavily redacted committee report, which was conducted to review multiple allegations against the corresponding author. The institution's committee concluded multiple allegations had occurred, affecting multiple publications, including in this journal's article: (1) data fabrication affecting one of nine figures and (2) that incorrect institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol numbers were listed in the published article, and some animal research methods described in the article lacked either IACUC approval or the experiments were conducted before the protocols were approved by the IACUC, which is against journal policy. The journal considered this sufficient information to proceed with retraction of the article.
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.
The corresponding author claims to have reported this dispute to the NIH Office of Research Integrity and to have resigned from the institution. The journal's retraction notice remains on hold.
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？
Advice:
The Forum noted this is a complex case and it is difficult to determine what is going on without the full participation of all of the parties involved. The Forum agreed that the journal cannot adjudicate the allegations of racism.
An independent body to review the issues and advise the author on next steps is needed, and it seems that this is happening at the NIH Office of Research Integrity. The Forum agreed this is the best course of action; the journal cannot make a judgement regarding the investigation carried out by the institution.
Al percatarse de un alto volumen de envíos del autor A, el editor X mostró su preocupación sobre los revisores sugeridos por el autor y sus comentarios. El autor A había sugerido en la mayoría de los casos los mismos revisores para todos los envíos, los revisores sugeridos tenían direcciones de correo electrónico imposibles de verificar, los comentarios se devolvían muy rápido (en 24 horas) y eran, por norma general, breves y positivos, limitándose a errores gramaticales. Todos los revisores sugeridos se decantaban por la aceptación inmediata o sujeta a revisiones menores.
The research institute said that they had not been able to reach an agreement with the author about the situation and asked the publisher to publish an erratum (or some similar note of concern) with the text: “The work was carried out while the author was at [xxx] funded by [xxx]. The experimental scheme set out in figure [xxx] was influenced by discussion with the [xxx] groups at [xxx]”
The author counter-proposed publishing an erratum as follows: "The author also acknowledges the collaborative effort in the submission of experimental proposals [xxx], based on the above theoretical framework, to build the first ever [xxx], which he initiated and led as the Principal Investigator, using the [xxx] Facility at the [xxx], in discussion with the [xxx] teams (funded by [xxx]) at [xxx]. The author further acknowledges the strong merits of this collaborative effort which warrants its continuation as already initiated by the author."
Is it appropriate to publish a statement of concern that the paper has been subject to a formal finding of research misconduct for making use of the ideas of others without permission or acknowledgement?
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.
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.
Journal B concluded that this was a case of simultaneous submission without aiming at duplicate publication. Journal B received the report of the ethics committee of the institution from author Y. The report did not find against the authors because they did not submit a revision to journal A while the paper was being peer reviewed at journal B. Author Y said that the authors would like the review to be published in journal B. Journal B forwarded the report to journal A.
希望杂志B》杂志上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.
论坛的问题
论坛同意journa的结论吗l B that there has been simultaneous submission without aiming at duplicate publication?
论坛同意journa的结论吗l A that there has been unethical behaviour on the part of author X (on behalf of the other authors) because they did not formally withdraw the article from journal A while waiting to see if the review would be accepted by journal B?
Does the Forum agree with the conclusion reached by the ethics committee of the author’s institution?
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?
Advice:
The Forum noted the policy of dual submission has not been honoured but there is little than journal A can do.