Correction of the literature, expressions of concern

A reader contacted the journal to raise concerns about a paper containing a potentially manipulated figure. The editor-in-chief agreed with the assessment that the figure had been manipulated and attempted to contact the corresponding author, without response. Following further contact with the co-authors and institution, it was established that the corresponding author had retired after publication of the paper, and no current contact details could be found.

No co-authors were able to confirm how the figure was constructed, but explained that it was an old image that was made by or for the corresponding author, and that the location of the raw image or original data was not known due to the corresponding author’s laboratory being dismantled on retirement. The figure is also present in a previous publication from 2007. The figure manipulation does not appear to affect the scientific results or conclusions of the paper.

Question for the COPE Forum
•考虑到相应的作者不能有限公司ntacted to confirm if the nature of any figure manipulation merits retraction, would it be appropriate to publish an expression of concern which will remain in place if no additional information is forthcoming?

A journal published a paper that is now under investigation by the host institution for misconduct. All authors signed that they agreed authorship and took responsibility for the content of the paper. After the investigations started, an author asked to be removed from authorship.

Questions for the COPE Forum
• What should the journal do in this situation?
• Should the journal permit the author to withdraw, or does agreement to authorship have irrevocable responsibilities?

一份期刊收到了读者的询问，指出，他们发现他们在发布的纸张中发表的光谱中发现了一些差异。他们建议差异将与手动“清洁”的光谱一致。如果这是真的，则将召入论文中报告的化合物的表征和纯度。

编辑器密切详细地检查了光谱，并验证了读者确定的差异是关注的合理原因。编辑还检查了作者在日志中的相关文件，并确定了通过光谱中类似差异影响的四篇论文。当编辑联系领先作者讨论关注点时，他们解释说，“清洁”散布逃避杂质峰值不是他们的研究小组进行的实践，他们并不相信它在这种情况下已经发生了。然而，已经进行了分析的研究员现在离开了该组和不再可用的原始数据文件。

As a comparison with the original data files could not be made, the journal approached an independent expert to obtain a second opinion on the evidence available in the published spectra. The expert confirmed that there was clear evidence that the spectra had been altered and that this could be consistent with an attempt to overestimate the yields for the reported reactions.

这之后,《华尔街日报》联系了导演of the institute to request their assistance in determining whether the spectra had in fact been altered. The director consulted with the lead author and the head of their facility. They confirmed that it was not possible to locate the original data due to a limitation of their archival system. They stated that their internal review had not found any ‘intentional altering of the spectra’. They stated that on that basis, the papers should not be suspected and should be allowed to stand.

本建议书与我们相信在光谱中可以看出的证据相反，但在没有原始数据文件的情况下，很难做出决定性的判断力。

Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• What action should the editor now take to resolve this matter? The journal is considering two options:
接受th研究所的建议at without evidence to prove deliberate manipulation of the data no further action should be taken.
—publish an expression of concern notice on each of the affected articles stating that discrepancies in the spectra were identified, the institute was asked to investigate, but that the original data were not available and they found no evidence of deliberate manipulation of the spectra.

2012年接受了一篇论文，但四位作者之间有关于作者令的作者之间存在漫长的分歧。提交人被告知本文不会出版，除非所有作者都可以签署关于作者和版权形式的秩序的书面协议。

2015年收到协议，指定了作者的订单，并命名为“最终通用作者通过纸张出版物的其余过程中查看论文”。在该协议结束时，它被说：“请向所有作者提供任何通信。”

Subsequently, the corresponding author attempted to make ‘minor’ changes and another author, author B, rescinded his acceptance of the agreement. The corresponding author later agreed not to make changes at that time and author B stated the terms of the agreement could stand.

在生产过程中，证明已发送给相应的作者。在作者B随后争议的打样阶段进行了变化。通讯提交人表示，所有作者（包括作者B）都有多次机会提供关于其他共同作者所建议的变化的具体变更和评论。

The paper was published on early view later in the year. In 2016, author B requested retraction of the paper immediately, alleging that the agreement was voided by the changes made during proofing. The paper is still on early view and has not been included in a print issue.

该期刊与所有四位作者相符合，并建议他们需要在文章的最终版本中达成一致或期刊，因为作者之间的不可调和的差异，将被迫撤回本文。该通信尚未制定任何协议，以便日期，提交人单独提出了诉讼前景。

Question(s) for the COPE Forum
•余额，论坛是否会同意在这种困难局势中的道德选择将是一个决定通过按键与新作者重新提交的选择撤回？
• What other options or advice would the Forum suggest?

An article was published in July. In October, a corrigendum was published to correct large sections of unattributed text. Two weeks later the journal and publisher received a complaint from a reader who accused the author of the published article of using text from an unpublished collaborative manuscript on which the published author was participating. This participation on the collaborative work was initiated and ongoing during the time that the manuscript was being prepared for publication at the journal. The unpublished collaborative work has not yet been published.

读者要求发布的文章的撤回，只有在未发表的工作的所有合作者与文章内容一致的情况下，才能重庆的可能性。

The publisher and journal initiated the procedure outlined in the COPE flowchart 'Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript'. The editor-in-chief has requested feedback from the published author on the reason for the large overlap in text.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

• Should the publisher and journal publish an 'expression of concern' while continuing with the investigation?
• Is this the correct approach in this situation?

我们收到了一些提交人在提交文章之前从一篇期刊发布的文章中删除了一些作者。没有人被删除的人被承认。

The claimant requested retraction. They said the article was previously submitted to other journals, listing them as an author. They provided what they said was an earlier version of the article submitted to another publisher, which listed those additional authors, including themselves. The articles were the same, with small differences in language. They provided what they said were rejection letters from other journals, including the additional authors.

The claimant was reluctant to be named and expressed concern about repercussions; we explained the claim could not otherwise be investigated by the institution. They agreed we could contact the authors and institution. We did, and the claimant stated the authors threatened them. The submitting author said the claimant should not have been an author and the claimant agreed to this, and provided signed statements from the other removed authors agreeing to being removed. We contacted these removed authors and they each confirmed they participated in the work, but did not want to be listed as authors.

The submitting author did not show us the agreement from the claimant to not be an author. The claimant informed us that one of these other people said they were presented with a pre-written statement to sign in English, which is not their native language.

We asked the institution to investigate. After several months, the institutional committee informed us of their decision: the claimant provided an email statement agreeing not to be listed as an author; our published author list was correct; the claimant would be penalised professionally for harming the institution’s reputation.

We asked to see a copy of the claimant’s email in which they agreed not to be an author, but this was not provided despite repeated requests. The institutional contact told us they had left their post and directed us to contact the article’s senior author. The claimant informed us this earlier statement applied to a different article. The claimant said we should have investigated this claim ourselves and by not doing so we exposed them to negative consequences; they suggested they might take legal action against us. We referred them to the COPE guidelines, 'Request for addition of extra author after publication'. They said they would consider legal action against the institution.

We let the institution know, through another contact, that an option for contributors who do not meet criteria for authorship is to be acknowledged and we confirmed the investigation is confidential so will not have affected their reputation; we did not receive a reply.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• Could the claim involving authorship have been made anonymously?
•involv之前我们可以进一步调查ing the authors and/or institution?
• Should COPE rules be revised when dealing with uncooperative or potentially biased institutional review committees?
• Is there anything further we can or should do now?