In this complicated ongoing case, the committee’s only advice was to perhaps ask the author again for an explanation as to why he published a letter in which he admitted writing signatures for co-authors, being ambiguous about ethics committee approval and saying that consent was written when it was oral. The general consensus was that the editor should publish the author’s letter about wanting a retraction of the retracted paper and perhaps an accompanying editorial could highlight the details of the case. It was also noted that courts’ decisions are based on different levels of evidence and dependent on local legal rules, and editors’ decisions might therefore differ.