Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern

Case number: 
16-16

Case text (Anonymised)

A group of unspecified members of an organisation have written an expression of concern (letter via email) to the editors wherein they request that an article previously published in the journal be retracted since they believe it is biased and inaccurate about regulation details within the organisation. They are further requesting that their letter be published in the journal.

The editors of the journal are unsure how best to proceed with this request. They believe the article should not be retracted (no unethical misconduct was committed by the author as far as they are aware, and the article did go through peer review with two reviewers having minor corrections and recommending the editors publish the article, which they accepted), as the reasons stated in the letter for requesting the retraction are not grounds for doing so. The reasons given are:

1) The absence of important information on the organisation's accreditation and professional regulations
2) The calling into question of the organisation's ethical standards and practices
3) The general misinformation about the organisation's business model
4) The overall poor research methodology and writing standards
Note: not all members of the organisation were aware that the letter was sent (one of the editors is a member of this organisation), and the author of the article and certain members of this organisation have a history of disagreeing on previous articles that the author has published in other journals on the same topic (furthermore, the author once had a submission accepted at this organisation’s conference and after a disagreement they uninvited him).

The editors have shared the expression of concern letter with the author and the publisher. The author has responded to all the points in their letter with counter arguments. The editors have also crafted a response letter to this organisation (standing by their decision). The publisher does not believe the article should be retracted, but instead that the editors should respond to the complaint with an explanation about when retractions are appropriate and also the nature of how the paper was accepted/published.

However, the editors are considering whether they should publish the letter with the responses (if it would benefit the community, which is a very close knit group). The author has also requested that his response be published in the journal.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• Is it wise/is there justification to publish the letter? (it could be beneficial if it is conducted in a scholarly manner but also could be unproductive if major disagreements sit on both sides historically.)
• If COPE recommends publishing on this topic, how does it suggest the editors do so (what format/are there procedures that should be followed)?
• If COPE suggests responding to the organisation via email is best, are there any other steps the editors should take to resolve this disagreement?
• Has a situation like this one occurred before/been handled successfully?
 

Advice: 

The Forum agreed that there does not seem to be a case for retraction, but the editor may wish to consult the COPE Guidelines for retracting articles (http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf). The advice was to have the conversation played out in the journal and allow the exchange to be published. It would be reasonable, if time consuming, to do the following: have the letter peer-reviewed by a qualified reviewer who can evaluate the accuracy of the claims in the article; have a peer-review of the response of the author; and if both get through the review process (with revisions if necessary) then publish them both.

This is an editorial judgement call. COPE would not have a “publication ethics” position here, besides that contained within its regular guidance for publishing (ie, to manage transparency, permissions, conflicts of interest, etc). Publishing letters or debate papers would make the process transparent. If the journal decides to publish the letters, the Forum recommended ensuring that the letter from the organisation is signed by an individual or individuals. The journal should not publish an anonymous letter.

The Forum noted that in cases such as these, it is very important to choose reviewers carefully. Selection of objective reviewers is especially important when organisations are involved. 

Follow up: 

The journal considers the case closed.

Resolution: 
Case Closed
Year: