A paper on a controversial topic from three authors was published. All three authors completed forms to say that they did not have competing interests. This was stated at the end of the paper. A reader subsequently contacted the journal to say that she had clear evidence that one of the authors did have competing interests. He had, she said, been involved in legal cases and received substantial payments for his work. The article related to these legal cases. The author intends to write to the complainant and ask her permission to send her letter to the author. If he accepts that he did have a competing interest, then the journal will publish a statement saying so. Does COPE agree with this? Should anything more be done?
建议：
_ The public has the right to know if there were conflicting interests and that if there was any doubt, it is better to disclose. _ Just because the material is in the public domain does not exonerate an author from declaring such interests.
An editorial was published on a particular subject in which the author’s competing interests were declared. He had given evidence on behalf of patients making a claim against a manufacturer. Three people then separately pointed out that we had already published a commentary on the same subject in which there had been no declaration of competing interest for the author. The three people all said that this author did have competing interests. A review of the documentation revealed a statement of competing interest from the author in his role as reviewer of the paper on which he subsequently produced a commentary. In his statement he said that he received funds from the pharmaceutical industry for speaking, researching, and advising—and for employing staff. He then, however, ticked the box to say he had no competing interest. He had not been asked to sign a separate statement of competing interest for the commentary, and so nothing appeared. He has now been asked to make a declaration of competing interest, which he has done. What lessons can the committee draw from this case, and should anything more be done?
建议：
_是很重要的编辑人员更vigilant in scrutinising competing interest forms. _ In this case enough has been done.
There is a breach of confidentiality here. The editor should go back to the first author seeking clarification of the supposed premature publication/breach of confidentiality, stating that a reviewer had brought this to his attention. If the reply is unsatisfactory, the editor should refer to the head of the institution. The reviewer should not lead this; the editor should.
跟进：
The editor was satisfied with the lead author’s reply and publication proceeded.
我们向评论家发送了一篇论文，他们建议我们应该拒绝这篇论文，主要是因为他认为它“几乎与同一个作者的媒体纸张相同”。我们用这些评论拒绝了这篇论文。提交人回到了美国说，他并不相信他对他的论文进行了公平的审查，因为他认为，审稿人有利益冲突。他写道：“所涉及的个体位于与我的部门的竞争对手学院，目前正在接受谈判，以合并他和我的部门。这使我们在学术上和行政细节方面的直接冲突。因此，我不相信我们已收到对纸张的非偏见审查。“他还写道：“对我们论文的评论，其中大部分都是不利的，这个人被此个人引用了其他期刊的其他高级学者和编辑。”作者没有对指责重复出版物进行任何响应。我写回这篇作者说，如果他正确地确定了审查员（似乎可能），那么我令人不安的是，审计员没有宣布利益冲突。我也请他回应可能的冗余出版物的重点。 I haven’t heard from the author. What should I do now?
建议：
审核人应告知作者的指控。审计员至少应该透露他的利益冲突，可能没有审查本文。双方存在错误：利益冲突和冗余。审稿人可能只是兴趣而不是利益冲突。未经作者许可，我们不能回到审核人员。如果提交人赋予它，那么编辑有义务通知审核人的指控。双方的冒犯行为，编辑是否有责任或者他应该走开吗？结论编辑有责任外向所有缔约方是否有过错。应采取肯定行动，应定义双方的义务。（1）跟进作者对冗余出版物的指控。 (2) If publication is redundant, the author should be reprimanded. A literature search will provide evidence of previous redundancy by the author. If he has done this before then his institution should be informed. (3) If the author gives permission, then the reviewer should be questioned about conflict of interest; without the author’s permission, this would have to be left alone. Further action The editor should write a third time to the author (the earlier letters not having been acknowledged) telling him that he can not let the matter rest. If there is still no reply then the editor should contact the reviewer requesting clarification of the evidence of redundancy.