编辑的决定

杂志收到了一个简单的,巴勒斯坦难民的横断面调查。作者是一名巴勒斯坦,受雇于一家慈善机构,承担海外大学研究的基础。这项研究包含新数据和内部约束的横断面调查似乎方法论上的声音。纸被送到两个同行评议者专业知识在该地区,中东地区国际问题的经验,涉及的敏感问题的理解。修改后的论文发表。论文有一个巴勒斯坦的政治寓意,但这不是觉得偏离研究成果。鉴于作者的从属关系的明确证据,决定尊重这个人的观点,让读者得出他们自己的结论。出版电子邮件到达后几乎立即从研究员在公共卫生和主任在以色列大学“解决冲突”。他们没有问题的科学基础的文章,但袭击了审查过程,并指责政治偏见,因为他们的编辑出版的《科学论文有一个清晰的政治议程表示通过背景的选择性和误导性的陈述事实。“编辑给的回复第一作者,一起发表这封信和回复。他们还评论的对应关系,指出发布的决定是基于科学和新发现。 The editors acknowledged the politics present in both the article and correspondence, but stated that they considered their readers intelligent enough to understand such issues and take them into account. They also indicated that they would review their procedures. The two Israeli correspondents also presented a political polemic and used this to attack the editorial and peer review process. This is not dissimilar to the situation in areas such as archaeology, where nationalistic narratives have become part of the ongoing battleground of the near and Middle East. - Did the editors allow any political bias to affect the peer review or editorial decision making process?

一篇社论是委托一位著名的医生,他随后被判有罪的研究海外的不当行为。有一个缺乏共识在《华尔街日报》的国家是否这个判断是正确的。作者继续工作,但从他的监管机构正在等待判决。——编辑应该发表吗?——应该与一个脚注编辑出版指这些事件?——如果是这样,这条脚注应说什么?——编辑应该拒绝道德理由吗?

日报》发表的一个十分关键的讣告,引发了骚动,促使死者的家庭成员抱怨国家机构负责监管媒体。《华尔街日报》认为批评的基础是准确和承认,没有引用足够的证据在讣告。《华尔街日报》正在考虑是否公布的证据。《华尔街日报》记者写的主要使用发布讣告,把它看作是重要的所有方面一个人的性格。

一个简短的讣告收到最近死去的医生。之前这个问题去打印,编辑认可的死者是纪律程序的中心与病人有过性关系。结果,他已经从医学注册职业不当行为在去世前两年。这不是在讣告中提到,也没有死者的弟弟,编写和提交了讣告,建议的编辑。然而,程序已经收到了广泛的媒体报道。死者有40年,否则杰出,的精神病顾问生涯。编委会成员有不同意见应做些什么。——发布讣告不变:没有人告诉死者的真相。——发布的讣告离退休后注意纪律处分。——拒绝发布讣告并建立一个政策,讣告的医生已经注销了职业不当行为将不会被发表。

的一篇文章提交基于社区常见疾病的诊断。从未收到过杂志上的一篇论文从这个特定的国家。在这项研究中使用的诊断测试是已知低敏感性和不是公认的金标准。编辑觉得作者是一位学者,这可能是他/她的机构将在全国为数不多的能够承受的黄金标准测试。他们问助理编辑,在这一领域公认的权威,看论文和评论它是否适合出版。他/她推荐直接拒绝,编辑同意的决定。不久写信给作者反驳,声称这项研究是为数不多的从特定区域,所有的参与者都从传统民族社区。“文章的直接拒绝只显示,尽管(出版集团)声称是国际的前景,它是来自不同文化和社会的研究不感兴趣。”他/她声称他们的研究将会得到一个更好的机会如果是白人社会。大约25%的文章发表在《国际。此外,《华尔街日报》发布低优先级的“全球”作品在线。 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?

提交的一篇论文报道的调查和管理疾病的爆发在工作环境中(公司)。作者承认提到医生从workplace-who拒绝了法律建议上市公司作为一个作家,也宣布,第一作者为报酬公司提供医疗咨询相关法律诉讼期间爆发在文章中讨论。提交文章时,爆发的公司之间的法律诉讼,在疫情发生,和该公司提供所谓的疫情的病原体(公司B)。第一作者已与公司签订了保密协议关于他/她的诉讼证据,而不是已知的任何信息向公众通过作者的没有错。作者还添加了一个手写的附录,声明他/她接受了协议”在某种程度上,我的学术自由报告发现的科学和公共卫生重要性不是妥协。“在同行评审的科学论文被评为声音。《华尔街日报》的出版法律顾问有一些担忧;法律诉讼活动;工作场所的医生虽然涉及科学不是列为作者;爆发,论述了从A公司的角度来看,这篇文章有说服力的和客观的公司,没有爆发的信息对B公司的知识。支持公司B的解决的,那么这篇文章需要反映这一点。编辑写信给作者,继电保护的法律问题和告诉他们,杂志,法律意见的基础上,不能发布,而诉讼还在进行中。《华尔街日报》表示,将考虑修订版本的手稿后得到解决。 The authors submitted a revised version of the article. As part of the revisions, the authors had deleted all references to the names and locale of the companies. The legal proceedings had been concluded with an out of court settlement; the lead author had no involvement in this. The terms of the settlement are subject to a confidentiality clause and it is not known whether liability was admitted or not. Company A does not wish the paper to be published on the grounds that this would violate the confidentiality agreement between the two parties. On the basis of legal advice from his/her institution, the author states that s/he is not bound by an agreement to which s/he was not party; that the handwritten clause in his/her agreement with Company A allows for publication of the article; and that the details of the outbreak were public as they had been presented in abstract form as well as briefly described in a local language publication. The lead author feels that the journal’s reluctance to publish on the basis of legal concerns is flawed. As originally relayed to the author, it was stated that the journal could be seen as “taking sides” in an ongoing legal dispute—a view that the author feels is “ethically unacceptable. ” Company A is threatening legal action against the authors if details of the case are published, and Company B would also potentially have an action for defamation. What should be done?

日报》发表了一篇综述。大约一年之后,在1997年发表的一篇论文的作者在杂志B说他遇到文章中写道在期刊文献检索。他指出,本文的部分几乎是相同的与他的论文在期刊b .虽然在杂志文章的作者做了一个引用他的文章,这只是一个特定的点,没有引用几乎相同的部分。杂志的编辑写信给作者要求一个解释。论文的作者在杂志B在法学院工作。他与同事讨论了两篇论文,一致认为这是一个作者,甚至著作权的侵犯。他想知道《打算挽救局面。

两个手稿被杂志接受X,作者都接受和发送给出版商。在收到长条校样,通讯作者删除最后一个作者的名字从手稿。在页面证明到来之前不久,期刊编辑收到一个请求,作者被允许删除作者B从作者的列表,而使一个适当的确认。编辑问作者寻求从作者B协议关于这种变化,并补充说,这不是《政策使这些变化。回复作者的包括一个漫长而详细的描述显然是一个个人这两个作者之间产生纠纷之后提交的手稿。然而,编辑决定恢复作者根据原作者的清单,并通知出版商。一些出版商周后收到作者的沟通B显示他的名字可能会被删除的可能性从三个手稿,他曾参与准备和提交。看来作者实际上是资深作者,而作者在他的实验室研究。出版商只占前两个,因此联系澄清的编辑。进一步的调查,发现第三个手稿已经被杂志的编辑X,但后来跟踪日报Y(他也使用相同的出版商)。 It was also noted that author B had already been removed. The publisher alerted the editors of Journal Y to the problem and the manuscript was rejected. The editors considered contacting the host institution, but discovered that the institute itself was racked with scandal and staff disputes. The editors finally decided to reject all future submissions from both authors A and B.

1990年的病例报告发表在据称,使用一个特定的气管内管导致气管损伤,要求孩子有气管造口术和气管重建。本文从专家手术单元,随后收到一封信的儿科医生照顾婴儿在医院转移到手术前后单元。他们指出,婴儿从未需要气管造口术,这事实上孩子有畸形与上呼吸道异常特征,这可能占了随后发生的问题。这封信是病例报告的作者,他回答说;两个字母都发表在《华尔街日报》。回复是一个非同寻常的拒绝,说,滥用这种特殊管可能导致气管狭窄,这孩子是否变形最终还是他不需要气管造口术是无关紧要的,补充说:“我们相信,这孩子很幸运不需要气管造口术。”这个问题是复活,因为在9年之后,最初出版的作者之一的关键信提供《填料的一篇文章中,使用这个故事的教训可能不可靠的结论从单一的案例报告。填料的文章的作者没有给出论文或期刊的引用,但自从他似乎暗示误导和不准确的出版,他要求参考和原来负责杂志上。很明显,是严重错误和误导性的内容发布的报告,这是很奇怪,《华尔街日报》的作者允许逃脱这样一个随便的回答。至少《华尔街日报》将使原始论文发表的作者修正,向他们道歉,或者杂志,更可能会让他们撤回,称这份报告是不准确和结论不能依赖。 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?

一篇社论,非常接近的一篇论文已经发表在另一个杂志投稿。这篇社论作者没有明确,本质上是一样的一个已经公布,但这在同行评审过程中被发现。然而,《华尔街日报》继续发表社论没有透露,它非常类似于一个已经出版。版权不是来自作者。失败是一段时间后,编辑已经发表,作者和编辑们得出结论,他们和过错。《华尔街日报》打算发布重复发布通知。做了正确的事吗?编辑应该做更多吗?