Recently, we have received a manuscript submitted by our Editor in Chief (EiC), with almost all of the Editorial Board Members and some of our authors of previous submissions as co-authors. In dealing with this we noticed that some of our previous published articles currently have conflicts of interest between the authors and the Academic Editor (AE).
Our peer review policy states that the managing editor and academic editor make initial checks on all submissions. The managing editor conducts a check for plagiarism and reviews the manuscript for suitability according to journal scope and appropriate format. If they pass this initial check manuscripts are assigned to an academic editor after disclosing any conflicts of interest (CoI) (there is a checklist for this as part of the peer review policy). Any CoIs must be logged on the checklist so that the EiC can decide whether to invite another editor.
However, as the published articles for which we have now discovered CoIs were accepted some time ago, and the AE of those published articles has no other conflicts of interest with the authors, can we consider this a special situation? We are thinking, for example, of whether this would meet the requirements for databases like PubMed Central.
Questions for COPE Council
1. Can the CoI issues in the past published papers, be regarded as a special case both internally and when our papers are reviewed for inclusion in databases?
2. Can the EiC still choose to use an AE who is a co-author on specific types of paper (if this has been declared on the checklist)? For example -
a. Guidelines (these usually have a large number of authors who are all in the industry but with few practical contacts)
b. Papers ‘authored’ by an international academic organisation which includes the AE
c. Papers published more than five years ago. Is there a standard or guideline on how long is the time limit of co-published papers that is not considered conflicts of interest?
d. A situation where an editorial board member (EBM) had worked with another author at the same institution (without publishing together) but the other author then changed institution. Could that EBM then be the AE of this author’s manuscript?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
COPE Council applauded the journal’s comprehensive COI policy.
For context, COPE’s Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (but applicable also to handling editors) states that:
Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (eg, within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review.
In addition COPE’s guidance on Ethical editing for new editors give advice on whether editors can publish in their own journal:
While you should not be denied the ability to publish in your own journal, you must take extra precautions not to exploit your position or to create an impression of impropriety. Your journal must have a procedure for handling submissions from editors or members of the editorial board that will ensure that the peer review is handled independently of the author/editor. We also recommend that you describe the process in a commentary or similar note once the paper is published.
A relevant case brought to the COPE Forum gives more details on this scenario.
The journal’s Checklist and policies address this recommended practice by directing editors to have self-authored articles sent to another editorial board member, a Guest Editor, or another expert active in the field; by stating that manuscripts submitted by editorial board members or guest editors are handled separately by other editors, who direct the review process and make the decisions; and by stipulating that if someone other than the editor-in-chief acts as the academic editor for a paper that this will be disclosed at publication. Following these steps will ensure transparency and best practice in the handling of conflicts of interest.
However, it should be noted that if a handling editor previously co-authored with an author, (whether or not the editor at that time was an editor), there is still a conflict of interest in the new submission because the editor is a co-author. The editor should declare this and not participate in the peer reviewer assignment or any editorial decisions, and a note should ideally be added in the paper about the independence of the peer review process.
If the editor were already an editor in the previous articles and took part in their review process, their peer review has been compromised. A post-publication peer review would be needed with an appropriate Editor's or Publisher's Note if acceptance is upheld. Correction or retraction is also possible. If the occurrence of editor-authored articles, with editor-authors reviewing their own papers, is high, this would be a serious problem.
Regarding the question about collaborations and working relationships in past papers (Question 2c), Council notes that the journal’s Checklist stipulates a period of five years for such relationships to be relevant, and COPE’s Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers states three years. If the past papers were published more than five years ago and no conflicts of interest were disclosed then there should not be an issue. Similarly, relationships that develop after a paper has been published should have no bearing on conflicts of interest for prior papers and there would be no need for a "special situation".
However, if there were COIs that were not disclosed concerning a past paper within this five year limit the journal should add an editor’s note to the papers in question, stating this fact. The same is true if the current policy existed at the time of the previous papers and there were similar relationships involving the peer review participants.
On the specific types of paper outlined in Question 2, there should again be no issue as long as the journal’s policies are followed in assigning papers to another academic editor. While some fields of study are very small and everyone knows everyone, this is not the case for a larger field such as the one relevant in this case. If additional criteria are needed in identifying a non-conflicted academic editor, the journal could borrow from their criteria for guest editors for special issues.
Finally, the journal asks about cases where editorial board members have worked with other authors, and the other author then changes institution (Question 2d). A working relationship of this type would constitute a COI based on the Checklist and so can be handled in accordance with the policy.