一篇基于社区诊断的common disease was submitted. The journal had never received a paper from this particular country before. The diagnostic test used in the study is known to have a low sensitivity and is not the accepted gold standard. The editors felt that as the author was a senior academic, it was likely that his/her institution would be one of the few in the country to be able to afford the gold standard test. They asked an associate editor, an acknowledged authority in this area, to look at the paper and comment on its suitability for publication. S/he recommended outright rejection, a decision with which the editors agreed. Shortly afterwards the author wrote to refute the decision, claiming that the study was one of the few from that particular region and that all the participants were from the traditional ethnic community. “The outright rejection of the article only shows that though the [publishing group] claims to be international in its outlook, it is not interested in studies from diverse cultures and societies.” S/he claimed that their study would have been given a better chance if it had been about a white community. About 25% of the articles published in the journal are international. Additionally, the journal publishes lower priority “global” pieces online only. But the journal’s rejection rates for non-UK papers were higher. The author also said that the editors had caused further offence by sending the email to a home address. But the author’s work email address did not work, prompting emails from the journal’s editorial office to repeatedly bounce back. The editors responded immediately, saying that they found the inferred accusation of racism offensive. They promised to refer the manuscript to the Journal’s ombudsman and to COPE. They invited the author to clarify and expand on his/her statements. S/he did not respond to this offer. The ombudsman agreed that the test used was notoriously insensitive. He wrote in his assessment: “Now that we have far more sensitive assays for detection of this condition it has become clear that it under reports the prevalence of the condition by a large margin. This view can be confirmed from most reviews in the literature relating to detection of this condition. In my view as journal ombudsman I believe the reviewing process to have been fair and accurate.” These comments were forwarded to the lead author. How should the editors respond now? Should the publishing group respond to this inferred accusation of racism?
Advice:
- It is difficult to refute an accusation of racism. - Some journals automatically send out for review any papers where a challenge had been made about a rejection. -- But this has to be balanced against using reviewers’ time if a paper is truly poor. - Work originating from developing countries can often be unoriginal and of the “me too” variety. - The editors’ actions had been sound and had complied with good practice. - Tell the author that the journal does have a policy of encouraging scientifically sound international papers, and that the paper received due process. - Tell the author that the paper had been rejected on scientific grounds only, and that the journal had adhered to its procedures and principles, which had been confirmed by an independent ombudsman. Copy in COPE on the letter sent to the author.
提交了一篇论文，详细说明了对政治上有争议的疾病的药物治疗的小海外试验。治疗是适度毒性的。这篇论文由两名裁判（A和B）看，他们对所用方法进行了相当大的批评。邀请审查但拒绝的C也收到了意见，因为他/她不希望根据“日记”公开同行审查政策的条款所知的作者所知的名字。C表示，对这一审判几乎没有理由，因此无法想象它已被授予研究道德委员会批准。c还提到，该研究由非同行审查的政府资金资助。另一位裁判（d）被咨询，他再次不希望他/她的身份向作者透露，而是重申C的担忧。本文在方法论地上拒绝了，但提议了解作者是否可以解决批评。作者修订并重新提交了本文，该论文被送到了更为严重的裁判（B）。他的观点是作者对其进行了很少的做法。 Another referee (E) was consulted, who was also sent the comments from C and D. E was happy to take part in open peer review, and concluded that the trial had little biological justification;was poorly conducted and reported; and that it was of such poor quality that the research ethics committees who approved it must be informed. The editors rejected the paper and wrote to the two research ethics committees who approved the study, enclosing B and E’s signed reports (with their permission). The authors were informed, and wrote a letter expressing their outrage that the journal had contacted the research ethics committees. It proved difficult to identify contact details for the research ethics committees that approved the intervention part of the study. Should the editors do more? Should the authors be asked to provide full details of their research ethics committees now and in the future?
Advice:
_应该首先联系作者并要求回应编辑前往研究道德委员会之前提出的疑虑。_写信给作者的机构，检查研究道德委员会批准程序是否正确进行。_研究伦理委员会批准可能是不道德的研究暗示雇主，因此难以将雇主们难以先与这些问题接近。_开放的同行评审政策需要明确：它始终开放，除非被怀疑不当行为。_要求作者对纸张响应疑虑。（编辑已回到道德委员会，并希望重新审查文章。他们是否为作者提供了保密义务？）_理想情况下，道德委员会应直接联系作者。如果作者拒绝派出文章，那么公众对道德委员会的公共利益能够审查这项工作会有理由在编辑遗嘱保密中违反。但编辑应告知作者任何此类行动。_编者愿意违反主编 - 作者机密性，公共利益对违约作说，应明确。_作者可能无法意识到这一事实，有些依赖期刊之间缺乏沟通，以犯下重复的提交和出版物。 _ It is usually the case that where the author is open about papers and their submission to another journal, that there are legitimate reasons to send the other papers elsewhere and sufficient differences in the papers to justify separate publication. _ In North America there was a fear of litigation arising out of such cases, but following the Tarasoff case, where it was held that the duty to warn and protect identifiable third party interests overrides a duty of confidentiality, a breach of confidentiality can be justified. In Belgium the duty of confidentiality is absolute, but there is no EU law on the issue.
1990年,一个病例报告发表在佤邦s alleged that the use of a particular endotracheal tube had led to tracheal damage, requiring the child to have a tracheostomy and a tracheal reconstruction. This paper was from a specialist surgical unit, and a letter was subsequently received from the paediatricians who had cared for the baby at the referring hospital before and after the transfer to the surgical unit. They pointed out that the baby had never needed a tracheostomy, and that in fact the child had had dysmorphic features with an abnormal upper airway, which may have accounted for the problems that occurred subsequently. This letter was shown to the authors of the case report, who replied; both letters were published in the journal. The reply was an extraordinary brush-off, which said that misuse of this particular tube could lead to tracheal stenosis, and that whether the child was dysmorphic or whether he did not eventually require a tracheostomy was irrelevant, adding “we believe that the child was fortunate not to need tracheostomy. ” This issue was resurrected because over nine years after the original publication one of the authors of the critical letter offered the journal a filler article, using this story as a lesson about the possible unreliability of conclusions from single case reports. The writer of the filler article did not give a reference to the paper or the journal, but since he seemed to be suggesting misleading and inaccurate publication, he was asked for the reference and it turned out that the journal was responsible. It is clear that the case report published was grossly inaccurate and misleading, and it is very surprising that the journal allowed the authors of it to get away with such an offhand reply. At the very least the journal would now have made the authors of the original paper publish a correction, with an apology from them, or that perhaps more probably the journal would have made them withdraw the paper, saying that the report was inaccurate and the conclusions could not be relied on. Is it worth doing anything about this now? The main conclusion is that the journal’s standards about what is acceptable in publications and in errors in publications have markedly changed over the past nine years. But should the journal now acknowledge errors made long ago, and if so how long ago?
_ A much broader audience has been reached with the publication of the editorial. _ Publication in two languages is not a duplication issue, provided the authors are transparent and disclose any previous publications on submission. _ The onus is on the authors to disclose previous publications as their promise of honesty. _ Most readers don’t expect editorials to be completely new, but word for word repetition of previous published articles would not be allowed. This would clearly be an improper use of power, but it is not unethical to reproduce material over and over.
A reviewer has written to complain that a review he sent to us on which he wrote “In confidence—not for transmission to author” was transmitted in part to the author. He had made some rather derogatory remarks which had been edited out by the editor before he had sent back the comments to the author. The review that remained was critical but unremarkable.
(3) Should editors make entirely clear whether they want comments that can be passed directly to authors, comments that are only for them or a combination of the two?
A medical journal conducted a randomised controlled trial of papers submitted to it without getting consent from the authors concerned. An author found out and objected. Should the journal have sought consent from its authors?
Advice:
Maybe this is taking matters too far and it is simply barmy to seek author consent. Should notice of this trial been given in advance and the authors been given the opportunity to opt out? Getting explicit consent from authors might have destroyed the validity of the study and introduced bias. It is common courtesy and best for the image of the journal to let authors know what is happening. Conclusion A notice should be added to the Instructions to Authors, to the effect that from time to time their papers may be used in trials of peer review and that this may slightly delay the processing time. In addition, the letter acknowledging receipt of the article might also contain notice (but with a light touch). In both cases, the authors can be given the opportunity to opt out.
跟进：
The journal has now amended its guidance to authors to the effect that their paper may be included in research. Authors are also advised of this in the letter acknowledging receipt of a paper.