Consent for publication (author)

In November 2009, the Editor of Journal X received a letter complaining of a serious breach of publication ethics regarding an article already published a month earlier on the Journal’s website. The paper concerned had not yet been published in a full journal issue either online or in print. One of the authors of the letter, Professor X, was a named author on the published paper. His complaint was that he had never seen the article prior to publication and had not agreed to be an author.

Professor X stated that some years previously, a number of research groups around the world were invited to join a collaborative research effort. A late Dr Y made the suggestion to make the work a multicentre study and suggested Dr Z as one of the investigators. Professor X also stated that Dr Y asked him to manage all the multicentre groups and compile the work into one final paper. Professor X said that an agreement was made to use a research protocol developed by him across the whole multicentre study.

The published article has Dr Z as corresponding author in addition to a Dr W as first author. Drs W and Z are at the same research institution. Professor X claims that he tried to discuss the progress of work (using the agreed protocol) with Drs Z and W but without reply. Professor X feels that Dr Z has not followed the agreed research protocol and by not liaising with colleagues has made this publication appear as if it is his original work and taken credit for work which was not his original idea. Professor X also states that as the original research protocol was not followed, the findings in the paper are of poor credibility.

When asked about the situation, Drs Z and W stated that they thought each other had been in contact with Professor X to obtain his consent before submitting the manuscript to the Journal. They both apologised for the mis-communication and suggested that Professor X could be removed from the author list before the paper is published in a journal issue. Professor X replied saying that only a full retraction of the paper would be a satisfactory outcome for him because his reputation was damaged by the publication of work that had not followed the originally agreed research protocols that he had developed.

On gathering both sides of the story, the Publisher decided that the two parties (Professor X and Drs Z and W) should communicate with one another in order to find a resolution to the problem and agree how, or if, this paper should be published in a journal issue or whether it should be retracted outright. Dr Z has since written to Professor X saying that there was no agreed usage of the protocol or publication plan and that he was kept informed of the ongoing project. Dr Z reiterated an offer to change the list of authors including the removal of Professor X from the paper.

I am the editor of an international clinical journal and am facing a very unusual problem that does not fit readily into COPE flowcharts.

Through a reviewer, I was informed that an author had submitted a paper without the approval of at least one of the other authors. This appeared to be confirmed by two other authors. In response to my bringing this possibility to the first author’s attention, he asserted that all coauthors had given informed consent to publish the work as it is. I have requested that he provides written corroboration of this. If this is not forthcoming I will send the paper to the other authors and seek permission to identify their views to him.

Another reviewer raised concerns about the ethics of a component of the submitted investigation. The author has responded that the work was investigated by the university to which at that time he was affiliated and received ethics approval. I have requested written confirmation of this. The author is no longer at the institution at which the work is reputed to have been conducted: he quotes as his current affiliation an institution that does not exist and gives only an email contact.

Additional criticisms of the work from a scientific perspective made it clear it was not acceptable for publication and I have informed the author of this. The author has two other manuscripts in submission and I have requested documented confirmation that the listed coauthors of these approve of their content. Furthermore, my attention has been drawn to items in four other journals raising issues about coauthors’ approval of other papers from the same first author and additional concerns about misappropriation of material from the publications of others.

In his response to my request for clarification of the issues raised with regard to the paper I rejected, the author stated his intention to “formally let open further legal steps against you”. Nevertheless, it seems clear that I have a responsibility to continue investigating the foregoing issues.

The journal has no established regular mechanism for this circumstance. A way of proceeding could be, after as much possible information has been assembled, to draw together a small panel, including appropriate experts and representatives from the sponsoring international society whose task would be to review the information (in anonymised form) and advise on any further action, both from the point of view of my journal and the wider issues. In the absence of an identified current employer, it may be that the institution at which the work was performed is the most appropriate to charge with responsibility for any further investigation and action.

Is the presumption correct that, in the event of the author translating his statement about legal steps into action, the editorial team and others involved on behalf of the journal would be indemnified by the publisher?

We recently published article A by author group X on our website ahead of print publication and subsequently received a formal complaint from author group Y alleging that the paper constitutes a breach of their intellectual property rights.

Group Y state that the described work is based on a jointly developed concept, initially resulting in a joint report (published 2004). In their view, article A therefore contains their intellectual property, which is documented by frequent email exchanges, delivery of all relevant reagents and two visits by the senior author in group X to group Y's laboratory.

Group Y further state that there has been a previous unauthorised publication of a report that also contained their unacknowledged input (intellectual input and reagents), resulting in group Y prohibiting any further publication on the same topic by group X without their authorisation (!?).

In article A, the authors state that they used commercial reagents, although group Y allege that their reagents were available to group X at this time. Group Y are seeking what they perceive to be correct acknowledgement for their contribution, and there is an ongoing legal dispute, which they are threatening to expand to include article A unless a suitable solution is found.

We approached group Y to clarify if they thought they should be acknowledged on the paper, or even included as authors, but they did not answer, as they believe that group X should be asked to clarify their position.

我们走近组X为他们应对这些allegations. Group X maintain that their collaboration with group Y was their idea, as an obvious extension to their previous clinical publications. Group Y are chemists and had not published on any clinical topic prior to the collaboration with group X. Group X state that the collaboration came to an end in 2006 when the senior collaborator in group Y demanded that either s/he should be named as the last author or one of the junior members of group Y named as first author on any manuscript resulting from the collaboration. Group X considered this to be unreasonable and continued their studies using commercial reagents.

The editors of the journal in question believe group X's response to be appropriate and complete, and find no grounds for taking group Y's complaint any further. The editors would like to proceed with print publication of article A.

Is proceeding with publication at this stage appropriate? The editors are concerned about the threat of legal proceedings, so should they therefore be more cautious in accepting one version of events above another—do they need to request “proof” and, if so, what would this proof consist of? The Forum’s advice on the next steps that they should take would be appreciated.

三篇论文关于一个医院的问题了een submitted to three different journals. Before publication the three editors of the journals became aware of the three different papers and the substantial overlap between them. The three editors communicated with each other and realised that they had four concerns: 1. There was very considerable overlap among the three papers. There didn’t seem to be any justification for publishing three papers rather than one or two. 2. The authors of the papers had not disclosed the existence of the other papers to any of the editors. 3. The three papers all had different sets of authors, and it seemed most unlikely that all authors met the definition of authorship devised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. It also subsequently emerged that at least one author was unaware that he had been listed as an author on one of these papers. 4. There were inconsistencies among the papers. One particular patient was described in all three papers, and there were inconsistencies in the nationality of the patient, the readmission date, the results of a particular test, and the final diagnosis. The three editors took a very long time to decide what action to take, and in the end differed in their responses. One editor decided simply to notify the authors that she would not publish the paper and that she was concerned about the circumstances of the paper. The two other editors decided to ask for an investigation. One editor wrote to the chief executive of the institution where the authors had worked some ten months ago, but no explanation of what happened had been received. What should the editor do now?

In 1995 a group of nine authors published a paper in a leading general medical journal. Copyright was granted by all authors to the journal. In 1998 the senior author received a complimentary copy of a recently published book. One of the chapters was essentially a reprint of the original paper. It was attributed to the sixth, first and second authors. Neither the first nor second author (the guarantor) had ever heard of this chapter or the book. They had not consented to the publication or the authorship of the chapter. The remaining six original authors were acknowledged for their help with the study, but were not listed as authors of the chapter. The chapter acknowledged that the data it contained had been published before. Enquiries to the publisher of the textbook revealed that the sixth author had applied for and, for £60, had been granted permission to use the original article by the medical journal in which it was first published. What are the professional, ethical and legal issues? What should be done?