A journal received the recommendation of a peer reviewer which expressed doubts about the validity of some of the data in an article. The editor-in-chief got in touch directly with the author and mediated to have the data validated by an outside contributor.
The authors responded by providing data validation by a colleague, who is now becoming a potential coauthor. The initial data were provided by the author and were convincingly validated.
The peer reviewer then directly contacted the colleague that validated the initial data to confirm their report without prior approval from the editor-in-chief, thereby breaching the rule of anonymity. In fact, the editor-in-chief had mentioned in an earlier mail to that particular reviewer that personal contacts or comments between reviewer and author are considered inappropriate.
Questions for COPE Council
- How serious is the misconduct of the reviewer?
- What action should be taken?
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 do not believe that the reviewer did anything particularly unethical in contacting the validator, as the editor revealed the identity of the validator to the reviewer. The editor is more at fault in having a quiet word with the author rather than going through the due process of independent validation.
So, the process here has been very flawed. Having a colleague of the author validate the data was the first major issue as it is an obvious conflict of interest.
The peer reviewer contacting the validator and agreeing with the outcome, while an improper contact (albeit facilitated by the editor), does however provide some reassurance as it was the reviewer who raised concerns. If the reviewer is now mollified it implies that their doubts were assuaged.
So, while the process has been compromised, if the editor believes the data have been properly validated, they should go ahead and publish the article.