In 2014 we received a letter of concern by a researcher, employed by the company selling drug A, who felt that the authors of the 2013 paper omitted essential information that might impact on the conclusions. It appears that the routine management of this disease has changed substantially over the 10 year period, and this should have been treated as a confounder for which statistical adjustments should have been made. This change in routine management of the disease is documented in a paper published in 2014, but the researcher felt that these authors were probably aware of this much earlier and should have disclosed this information during the review process of their 2013 paper.
Another problem is that, due to the complexity of the statistical calculations, we are entirely dependent on the authors to judge whether the routine management data would have seriously impacted the conclusions of the 2013 paper.
我们回答说，我们已经详细研究了这两份文件，不认为这是一个重复出版的情况，我们认为这件事已经结束。克莱尔·弗朗西斯不同意，他重申了文章提交时间的问题，坚持撤回论文，似乎忽略了实际发表的内容她呼吁我们作为COPE成员的地位，作为我们应该考虑这些问题的理由。 We believe not only that using a pseudonym to pursue these matters is unethical, but that we have followed the correct procedure and have made the correct decision regarding these papers. We would be interested in hearing if the Forum agrees (on the former points, if not the latter).
建议：
The Forum agreed with the editor that it would not consider prior publication of an extended abstract as duplicate publication, unless the extended abstract was very detailed and included lots of data, which was not the case in this instance. The editor made the right decision. COPE supports a whistleblower’s right to remain anonymous and would encourage editors to respond to any allegations of unethical behaviour as long as there is specific evidence and not just vague accusations.
跟进：
We replied to Clare Francis saying we had been to COPE and were satisfied that we had done the right thing, and we are not going to change our course of action. She responded along much the same lines as the original complaint—we did not respond and consider the matter closed.
As editor, I have been urged a number of times via email (the true sender of which was not always clear) to retract the said review. At first—before the full extent of the retractions was confirmed—I could do no more than wait, rather than react prematurely, although even at that stage, tracking and trying to verify the claims took some time. Now I have analysed the review—which took a significant chunk of time—and identified the parts that cite the six references. Those constitute around 18% of the body text, mainly the more novel insights.
I am in a quandary between providing the most up to date information in immediate connection with an article and getting into something that could consume significant amounts of already very stretched editorial resources, and then, more importantly, require further corrigenda on the same article if more references are found to be faulty at some point in the future: a seemingly never-ending story...
The editor decided to publish an expression of concern which listed the papers referenced in the review article that had since been retracted by the respective journals.
The editor in chief received a letter to the editor criticising a paper published earlier in the journal. The editor first told the author of the letter that he would publish the commentary after he had given the authors of the criticised paper a chance to respond. When asked by the author of the letter, he later added that he would also publish the letter if the authors failed to respond.
我们的出版商告诉他,她正在他的concerns seriously and would ask me to investigate in accordance with COPE’s guidelines, particularly in relation to our disclosure policy. Although the author of the letter accused us of being in breach of the COPE policy on fair peer review in an earlier correspondence, he then replied that in this case COPE’s ‘concepts’ are meaningless and, for example, anonymous peer review or impartiality are impossible, since he is the only researcher “who has exposed a long series of frauds” on the topic. He went on to reiterate his request that we (a) do not contact the authors of the paper he criticised (he was initially fine with the authors responding to his critique), (b) ask referees specifically if they belong to the advocacy group discussed above and (c) send, if needed, his blinded manuscript to ‘independent’ (from the advocacy group mentioned and industries) reviewers, of which he proposes three names.
我们还没有回复这最后一封邮件，并决定寻求COPE的建议，如何最好地结束案件，我们应该做得更好更早。特别是，我想听听你对以下方面的看法： -编辑首先应该如何与信的作者沟通？我们处理这个案子的主要弱点是什么？ -如果被批评论文的作者属于一个倡导团体，他们是否应该在其利益声明部分披露这一点？ -如何回应信的作者关于不公平同行评议的指控，以及他对盲目同行评议制度的拒绝？ ——和我们如何,我们应该检查是否一个uthor of the letter is genuinely trying to make valid points against prevalent opinion? — on the other hand, should he have an undisclosed agenda, should we take any action against him?
On the third point, if an editor is defamed on a blog or website, what can he do? Some suggested a dignified silence as the best option as otherwise it can fuel the problem and encourage more debate. However, all agreed that if the accusations are potentially libellous then the editor should seek legal advice.
I said we would contact the author and ask him to clarify the purpose of the group, their involvement in it and whether they think it might be a conflict of interest. We would then assess their response against our current requirements regarding declarations of interest.
Dr C quickly sent a couple of inflammatory emails in his usual style, where he repeated that there is a “universal conflict of interest that must be disclosed” because 90% of authors, editors and reviewers belong to the same bias ‘advocacy group.’ He then went on to contradict himself and, in my view, invalidate his only claim which may have had some merit:
The authenticity of the content of numerous publications by Author K has been questioned by ‘concerned researchers’ in an anonymous email sent to the Editor of Journal A in December 2009.
The email noted that author K had been publishing articles in numerous journals that “report remarkable findings that watching humorous films, drinking deep-sea water, exposure to road traffic, cell-phone noise and radiation, kissing, playing computer games, listening to Mozart, infant suckling, sleep deprivation and starvation all affect various [physiological] responses.” Few of K’s findings have been replicated by other authors and the ‘concerned researchers’ were clear that they believe the findings to be unusual and the research based on improbable hypotheses and mechanisms.
A retired UK allergist who said he knew author K contacted us to say that he believed that the author was a genuine scientist and would not undertake scientific fraud.
We asked the reviewers of the original paper whether they had any doubts about the authenticity of the work published in our journal in 2004 and they said that they had not had any concerns. However, the paper was a case series and the information could easily have been fabricated.
I am writing because I’ve noticed a major problem in Figure X. It appears that two of the panels (X and X), which are supposed to be representative of two different XX specimens from two different experimental groups, belong to the same tissue section (or quasi-identical serial sections)....However, the major problem in this figure is that the two panels are only partially identical. ...These observations raise the concern that the pictures have been intentionally manipulated, and I believe that this concern should be brought to your attention.”
“If the claim is that the three photos of Fig. X represent different samples I would in indeed have a problem with that. Same elements look identical. Difficult to prove though as there are larger parts that differ. Nevertheless, that concerned reader may have a point. I am suspicious, too, that the figures have been manipulated.”
The author’s institution was contacted and the editor forwarded all relevant correspondence with the author and, in anonymised fashion, correspondence with the scientists who brought this to their attention. The rector of the author's university has assured the editor that they take this seriously, have asked that the journal take no further action while they are investigating and will inform the journal of the outcome.
A letter was sent to an editor, claiming that scientific misconduct had taken place in Russia. The editor did not want to ignore the issue, which was not related to submitted papers and could not be published as a letter. But s/he was unsure what action to take.