Misconduct/questionable behaviour

The case has been with two publishers for more than a year. Journal A at publisher A published article A by author A, affiliated to institution A and institution B (in another country), and author B affiliated to institution B. Journal B at publisher B then published article B, by the same authors and affiliations. The two articles are on closely related research.

发表于第A条和发布B第一次和发布后，作者A的高级同事，在机构A联系出版商A询问A.撤回款项。索赔人称，作者A在提交后留下了杂志A但在出版之前的情况。索赔人称，在未经批准的情况下，索赔人在未经许可的情况下使用其他研究人员的数据（违反作者签署的协议），有些数据通过机构A无助，而作者B和机构B没有参与该研究。据称已被涉及的其他研究人员没有得到承认。这些指控由机构A的部门负责人确认。

Author A disputed this, saying they did do the work and were still affiliated to institution A (as confirmed by a letter signed by an institutional representative and a court document), and they were no longer subject to the agreement they were said to have breached because it had been terminated. Author B has not commented on the allegations and institution B has been uninvolved in the investigation.

Publisher A asked institution A to formally investigate. Institution A’s preliminary investigation confirmed grounds to suspect misconduct and they began a further investigation. At this point, institution A asked for the publication of an expressions of concern (EoC) to inform readers of the investigation, which both publishers agreed to. Author A asked for the EoCs to not be published due to ongoing legal action against institution A and the claimant and asked to be allowed to add comments to the EoCs if they were published, but each publisher posted the EoC without author A’s comments.

几个月后，一名机构代表要求根据作者A提出撤回，没有向调查和疑问的人提供数据，并疑虑被命名作者是唯一为该研究做出的人。A机构提交人A对机构A的进一步采取了法律行动，但是要求提请作者A的不当行为撤回的条款表示，他表示没有进一步调查作者B.

出版商尚未提供调查报告或调查结果的详细信息。作者A仍然否认不当行为，并表示他们没有得到证据，并确认了他们对机构A的持续法律行动。

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

• 一种选择可以是更新EoC，以记录机构的调查，以记录制度A调查不当行为及其撤退要求。这是在没有细节的情况下合理的，并根据正在进行的法律诉讼（该机构承认正在继续）？
• Institution A is pressing for retractions and presumably legal proceedings could be dragged out by author A. Does institution A have the authority to force retractions while civil legal proceedings are underway?
• 出版商可以坚持看到制度调查的调查结果吗？

A publisher was alerted to possible issues with band duplication in an article (more than 10 years old) by a reader. The corresponding author was contacted to resolve the issue. The author was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the bands, and because of the age of the article, the original data were no longer available. The institution was asked to investigate; a summary of the case was provided and the similarities in the bands using an open source tool were highlighted.

When the publisher received a copy of the investigatory committee’s report, it was clear that the institution had focused on the use of the software tool exclusively. The institution concluded that the software was not a validated tool, and so there was no basis for concluding that the blots in question were duplicated or improperly altered. The contact person also stated that it was not the institution's place to comment on whether the data in the publication were sound and trustworthy.

出版商指出,软件没有t used to detect problems with the paper—it was simply a tool to provide a visual demonstration of the similarities between the blots. The publisher stated that they would have raised this issue regardless of whether the tool was available. They explained their expectation and experience that institutions initiate inquiries into potential ethics cases raised by journals and comment specifically on whether the conclusions are still sound. The publisher asked again that the committee investigate the scientific issues raised about this paper; the institution declined.

Next step being considered are sending the paper to one of publisher’s editors who has relevant scientific expertise, or to an independent adviser, asking them to advise on whether the conclusions are still supported if the blots in question are unreliable. The publisher is also considering sending the paper to an independent ethics expert to verify that there are potential problems with the blots.

如果可以独立验证，墨水有潜在的问题，有两种行动方案：（1）如果顾问发现结论仍然很声音，请发出关注/出版商的票据的表达，突出显示特定墨水和细节采取的步骤使读者可以自行决定数据;（2）如果我们的顾问发现结论没有声音，请撤回纸张。出版商会告诉该机构他们计划采取的路线。

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

• 出版商的计划是合理的，还是有更好的行动方案？
• 无论是否发表关注/出版商的纸条的表达，或扣除扣除，从事机构的报告是合理的，以便读者知道该机构拒绝调查？
• Should the publisher consider contacting the relevant funding agencies?

A journal operated double blind peer-review, so the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa. However, the anonymity of the authors is not guaranteed, as the reviewers may discover the identity of the authors (because of the area of research, references, writing style, etc). But rarely can the authors identify the reviewers.

The journal received a request from a reviewer to share a post on twitter, which may disclose the reviewer’s identity to the authors.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

• Does the double-blind peer-review process apply after publication?
• 当审稿人要求在社交媒体上分享他们的报告或经验时，建立期刊的立场？

在与高级编辑咨询后，处理编辑拒绝了一份文件，恕不另行审查。相应的作者大约2周后发出了上诉，在那里他要求纸张被送到第二次机会并被派遣进行同行评审。他补充说，如果在没有审查的情况下拒绝的新决定，编辑应对上诉信中提出的一些问题和评论提供详细的回应。He also mentioned that, in order to illustrate the importance of the study, he had done a social media poll asking whether the paper in question was more relevant to the journal’s readership than another paper whose link he provided in the poll and that had recently been published in the journal. The appeal was also read by another senior editor and it was agreed to reject the paper again without providing any detailed explanations as the behaviour was considered borderline bullying.

Three weeks after the second rejection, the corresponding author contacted the journal expressing his disappointment with the decision and threatened a freedom of information request to access the correspondence between the editors that led to the editorial decision. Moreover, he suggested he would be writing about his negative experience with the journal.

The handling editor perceived this as aggressive and litigious behaviour and shared the correspondence with the head of the research section of the journal, who responded to the author and copied the senior author in the correspondence. The senior author responded by acknowledging the inappropriate behaviour of the author and promising to take action internally.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

• Did the journal handle the case appropriately?
• Could something else or something different have been done?
• How can this type of situation be prevented?

An original paper was submitted to our journal. After peer review, the authors were requested to revise the paper, and the revision was submitted back to the journal. Our manuscript editor accepted the paper.

The paper was scheduled for publication 3 months later after copyediting was completed. We informed the corresponding author about acceptance of the paper and sent them the typeset article for proof reading.

通讯提交人联系我们表示他们希望在我们宣布证明阅读纸张后两周撤回他们的提交。作为主要编辑，我立即向相应作者发送了一条消息，并请求解释。这些文章已被一个格式编辑器，三个同行评审员，一个稿件编辑器，一个副本编辑器编辑，最终排版了我们的打印机。我们不收取任何文章处理费。

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

• Significant resources have been provided to modify and improve the paper. Should we accept the withdrawal?
• Is there anything else we should do if the authors do not respond to our request for an explanation?

单个作者向我们的期刊提交了一篇论文。相似性检查显示与另一个已发布的纸张相似的48％。已发布的论文总作者-5总数为5。论文之间的相似性在引言，方法和讨论部分中。提交作者未提及已发布的文章。

我们查询相应的作者，但尚未收到响应。

Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• What shall we do given this circumstance?
• Should we withdraw/reject the article and embargo the author.
• Should we contact the author’s institute without receiving any clarifications from the author?
• How long should we wait for a response from the author before reporting to the institute?