A journal published several articles, reviewed by reviewers recommended by the author, that were identified as suspect. After a thorough investigation, the journal determined that almost all of the peer review responses for these articles were fabricated - the result of identity misappropriation and fraud.
The journal was subsequently contacted by two government agencies of the country where one of the lead authors was located. The agencies asked the journal to provide information and materials from the peer review process as they have opened an investigation of the circumstances, suspecting potential professional misconduct/fraud by the author.
The case is somewhat different than the typical scenario in that the journal believes that author fraud occurred and the peer review process was therefore compromised (the journal has not been able to confirm with certainty the identities of individuals linked to the reviewer email addresses).
The journal has consulted with legal counsel regarding the legal aspects both of complying with data protection laws applicable to their offices (operating in two different countries) as well as responding to the government agencies, who may potentially issue a subpoena for the information.
Question for COPE Council
- What advice can COPE offer in respect to this scenario?
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.
While COPE believes that the editors have a responsibility to comply with legitimate requests to cooperate in investigations involving scientific misconduct, COPE would advise that the editor should require a subpoena (or its equivalent) first. The editor can then verify that the contacts are indeed pursuing an official investigation, and the editor does not set a precedent of just handing over material related to a confidential peer review process upon request.
If the journal has reasonable evidence that the peer review process has been compromised, and the articles have been retracted, it would seem reasonable for the agencies to accept this. Sending the government agencies the retraction notices and the reasons should satisfy the agencies. Confidential treatment of author manuscripts is a fundamental aspect of scholarly publishing and hence COPE would suggest not revealing information about the confidential peer review process (even if compromised) unless there is an official legal reason to do so.
If the agencies were funders, they might be further interested in investigating the findings but presumably would go to the institutions for issues such as access to raw data. Has the editor contacted the institution for repeated violations of publication integrity in misidentifying or making up false reviewers? This would seem a reasonable approach given the circumstances. The editors could then refer the government agencies to the institutions.
Editors should have clear statements in their guidelines to authors and reviewers that they will cooperate in legal investigations, ultimately even if it means compromising the confidentiality of the submission or review process.
Hence in summary, there should be some information publicly available based on any retraction notices, but sharing additional information about the peer review process should be discussed with legal counsel. Additional information about the confidential review process should likely be withheld unless deemed legally necessary to comply with the request.