Journal A received a number of concerns from a reader regarding a paper published in the journal. These concerns were reviewed and sent to the authors of a paper, along with additional comments from the editorial board. The concern was largely around retrospective registration, and an inconsistency between the trial registry record and the published paper. An editorial board member conducted a full comparison of the trial registry entry with the paper.
作者承认与完全诚实的错误explanations. The editor-in-chief has asked for confirmation that all authors and institution are aware and outlined options for next steps. The suggested options for next steps from the editor-in-chief are: (a) retraction of the paper; (b) substantial corrections and explicit declaration of the flaws of the trial procedures and protocol violations and selective and misleading reporting; which may well render the trial invalid or at least biased, and then providing a better and corrected summary table and narrative of what can be legitimately said. This is not ideal and will regrettably give the impression of insufficient rigour in the execution of a trial and the data still being in the public domain, although a more confident statement of a negative trial is better than selective reporting of some positive findings; (c) or we invite retrospective critique and commentary on trial and trials in general when reported to be invalid or flawed; this is an important educative role, but does not remedy that the trial data are in the public domain and are misleading.
Again, the authors offered an apology claiming honest error and preference for the article not to be retracted. They have offered to publish a correspondence letter to explain the registration issues in due course or correct any inconsistent sections according to the review comments and registry information. The journal is now questioning the next course of action: retraction, corrigendum and/or an editorial outlining the issue.
Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• The Editorial Board were initially considering retraction but are now considering publishing a narrative/editorial of the issues for transparency, confirming the journal’s current/new policy of requiring prospective registration and an explanation of any changes in protocol in the methods section. Should this accompany a corrigendum?
• Ethics approval: approved in April 2011, but the protocol states study execution time is August 2010 to July 2013. The authors state that the first patient was referred in May 2011. Does this need further explanation?
•编辑委员会是否考虑收回？
• Are there any other actions the board should consider?
建议：
The Forum asked if the journal had contacted the institution and if there was an investigation in progress. The editor informed the Forum that the journal has asked for confirmation that all of the authors and the institution are aware of the issues, but no response has been received to date. The authors have stated that the institution was not aware of the need for prospective registration. The editor may like to pursue the institution for more information.
Some journals ask for the full protocol to be submitted to the journal along with the article. The journal then checks the protocol against the paper before the paper is peer-reviewed. The authors are asked to explain any deviations from the protocol. The editor may wish to consider this approach to avoid similar situations in the future.
The authors requested changes to the corrigendum which could not be accommodated. On this basis the Senior Editorial Committee decided to retract the paper. The retraction notice and editorial have been drafted and will be published online shortly.
AuthorsSteve Yentis (former COPE Council member and Editor-in-Chief, Anaesthesia) and COPE Council Version 12015年3月 How to cite this Yentis S on behalf of COPE Council. Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct. Version 1. March 2015https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.7
Our COPE materials are available to use under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non-commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. We ask that you give full accreditation to COPE with a link to our website:publicationeThics.org.
完整页历史记录
16 March 2020
Case changes
The topic for discussion at this Forum was ‘Electronic Responses to Blogs and Journal Articles’. Specifically, what are the issues, in terms of publication ethics, surrounding blogs where journals are the target of concerted 'attacks' by the proponents of one particular viewpoint, and are there appropriate guidelines on managing such situations?
At the 2017 COPE European Seminar, Jane Jacobs, Director of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity at the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, presented her thoughts on responsible research practice in Australia, authorship and publication
Our journal accepted a randomised controlled trial for publication which has not yet been published online. In the submitted paper, the randomised controlled trial is described as commencing in 2004 with completion in 2011. We have received an email and telephone call from an individual not listed as an author or reviewer of the paper with the following alleged disputes: •他是2004年至2008年审判的调查员。 •他于2008年分析了本研究的数据，该数据于2010年发布为2010年的MD论文，其中在该研究中与试验方案发生在该研究之后可能发生变化的机构。结果提交给日记，但提交拒绝，并未在其他地方提交。 •他未列为手稿的作者，尽管他对研究的贡献已被承认。 •未粘连到2008年收集的数据，以便在完全分析2011年的完整数据之前进行数据分析。 • There is a dispute as to whether some subjects at the time of the assessment of the primary outcome measure should be included in the data analysis.
Steps taken by the journal so far: 1）我们已经写信给稿件的相应作者，告知他收到本投诉和调查义务。 2）此稿件的出版过程现已暂停，等待本调查的结果。 3.) We have requested from the complainant the following documents: original trial protocol in 2004 in order to compare it with the registered version; MD thesis published in 2010 in order to compare its results with that reported in the currently submitted manuscript; draft manuscript of the results of the study submitted to the other journal which was submitted in 2010 but rejected for publication for comparison of its results with that reported in the currently submitted manuscript. Next steps 4) We will seek confidential input of peer reviewers to provide their feedback on alleged discrepancies, when additional information is received. 5）如果我们发现上述差异似乎有效，我们将联系当前提交的作者，并要求澄清两项工程之间的联系和对发现的任何差异的回应。 6）根据上述情况，我们将重新审视稿件接受的决定。 7) If we conclude that any confirmed concerns are serious and unfixable through revision of the manuscript, we reserve the right to reject the manuscript. 8) The publisher and its publishing partner will be notified so that its legal department has prior notification of the case.
Question(s) for the COPE Forum • Is the journal taking the right steps? • Is there any further action required? • If the current authors amend the manuscript and authorship appropriately in light of any discrepancies found, we intend to accept the paper. Is this ok? •在上面的情况下，我们对通知作者机构的义务是什么？
建议：
The Forum was updated that the journal has received the documents requested in step (3) above. The journal did not involve the peer reviewers—the editors reviewed the materials. On reviewing the documents, the editors found discrepancies and have contacted the authors for an explanation.
The Forum cautioned about the editors getting involved in what is essentially an authorship dispute. There may be a limit to what the journal can do. The recommendation was to refer to the institution, in a neutral way.
One other suggestion was to ask for documentation from the ethics committee that approved the study. The ethics committee should also have evidence of any protocol changes. If there are any discrepancies, these can also be brought to the attention of the institution.
