Several years ago Author A was asked by Editor B to contribute an essay to a publication. The book took a long time to complete and underwent many modifications. When the book was published Author A noticed that several edits had been made to the text without Author A being informed and which Author A did not approve. The most notable edit is an added reference to a piece of text. The added reference now makes it look as though the author is quoting Editor B.
Author A accuses Editor B of appropriating text by including a reference to a work by Editor B himself which is not published yet, but forthcoming with another publishing company. Editor B, in addition, claims that adding the info into the bibliography as ‘forthcoming’ was only meant to give the reader additional information of a discussion which goes on in the future.
Editor B tried to amend the situation by offering to have the reference removed in the online version but changed their mind after further correspondence with Author A. Editor B believes that an apology is sufficient. The correspondence between both parties, on which the publisher was copied in, was fierce and inauspicious. The publisher checked whether rectification in the online version is possible and it is. Author A has now appealed to the publisher for assistance in resolving the matter.
The publisher proposed having the case reviewed by an ombudsman which is supported by both parties. However, the ombudsman proposed by Editor B is unlikely to be accepted by Author A. On that point the publisher came to the conclusion that further mediating between both parties would remain challenging with no solution in sight.
Author A presented information that gives us reason to believe that they own the intellectual property of the text. Editor B apologised and thinks this is sufficient. They believe that their behaviour was ethical.
Question for COPE Council
- How should we approach this situation.?
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.
Council believe it was completely inappropriate for an editor to add a reference to their own work without consulting the author, and that the correction should be made online. It seems clear that the editor has behaved unethically. The principle (and normal practice) here is that editors should not publish changes to an author's piece of work without those changes having been agreed with and approved by the author (unless the circumstances are exceptional).
Unfortunately, an apology from Editor B and reversion of the text is all that can be done, but at least that much should be put in place.