Editorial independence

Case

Satire in scholarly publishing

17-06

An intentional satire of a randomised controlled trial was published in a journal. In addition to multiple overt clues that the article was fake in the text, the article ended with a clear and direct statement in the acknowledgments that it was satire.

Case

Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern

并且

组织的一组未指明的成员已经向编辑表示关注(通过电子邮件的信函),其中要求他们要求在期刊上发布的文章被撤回,因为他们认为它是偏见和不准确的关于组织内的规则细节。他们进一步要求他们的信在日记中发表。

Case

Attempt to supress legitimate scientific results

15-15

The journal is operated by institute A, and the editor is an employee of institute A. A manuscript was submitted late in 2014 by authors from institute B, a similar type of organisation in the same country. The manuscript was reviewed by two referees who both recommended publication following minor revision.

Case

Anonymity versus author transparency

12-17

一个editor invited an author to submit a paper to his journal. Colleagues of the author suggested “unsubmission” because it could be damaging to the author’s career. The editor contacted the publisher and requested that the paper be withdrawn. The editor then contacted the author asking if he would consider publishing the paper anonymously (ie, with no identifying names). The editor did not consult with the publisher on this matter.

Case

Provenance of a correction: undisclosed court case involvement

09-19

The first author of a paper published in 2004 has submitted a “letter to the editor” (LTTE) offering some corrections, and reaffirming some conclusions. The letter has not been published.

Case

Whose responsibility is duplicate submission?

04-32

Ten days after receiving an article for consideration, a group of editors received an email from the publisher informing them that the particular author in question had recently submitted nine articles to their journals, eight of which had been submitted in the previous seven weeks. Based on the similarity of the titles, the publisher had concerns about possible duplicate submission and had written to the author to request clarification.

Case

Arm twisting an editor

02-09

A paper was accepted, pending a revised version, which made use of official government information on reported health reactions in a particular age group over a 20 year period. Two of the authors were academics and two worked for the government’s health department. When the revision arrived, the names of the latter two authors were missing.

Case

Who ensures the integrity of the editor?

99-22

一个editor came across a letter from the editor-in-chief of his journal to a reviewer that asserted he had recommended the acceptance of a manuscript. He had in fact recommended the opposite, both verbally and in writing. The paper in question was a guideline on the therapeutic choices for a relatively common medical condition. The authors had claimed their conclusions and therapeutic recommendations were “evidencebased” and recommended a new, expensive medication as first-line treatment.

Pages

  • 1
  • 2