This is how I dealt with an author who submitted a fabricated manuscript to my journal.
A junior doctor submitted a paper about the use of a drug in a particular condition. Three expert reviewers were sure that the author did not undertake the claimed study, emphasising that the drug was not available in our country (Middle Eastern country) and it had not been registered for clinical use or for use in clinical trials at the time when the paper was submitted. The author also mentioned using tests that were not available in our country at that time.
The author was advised that his paper was excellent and therefore he should publish it in a UK journal. The author took the advice. I contacted the editor of the UK journal and warned him about the author. The UK journal rejected the author’s paper.
This overseas editor was not available by telephone to discuss the case, so the Forum discussed it in his absence.
The general view of the Forum was that they could not support the conduct of the editor. The Forum wished to convey to the editor that his method of dealing with an author suspected of fabrication was not acceptable. If the editor expects authors to tell the truth, then he must set an example. The editor could have placed himself in a very difficult situation. There are clear guidelines in the flowcharts on what to do if you suspect data are fabricated and the editor is advised to follow these processes in the future. The Forum also pointed out that the editor has a role in educating the author on the seriousness of data fabrication and should have considered handling the matter himself rather than passing it on to another journal. The chair of COPE agreed to contact the editor of the UK journal to determine if the issue of data fabrication is being investigated by them.