Several years ago a previous editor of a journal accepted an article for publication following peer review. The current editor feels that the article should not have been accepted in the first instance, but rejected instead. After acceptance, the article was sent to a copy editor who was scheduled to work on it. However, the process was stopped by the previous editor and the copy editor. The language was very poor and was deemed to be un-editable. Also, the equations were incomprehensible. Following this, the manuscript fell through the cracks.
The author has recently enquired as to when their article will be published online as it was accepted five years ago. Not only is the language poor, but the study is now five years old and not as relevant as it was then.
Questions for COPE Council
- Does the journal have grounds to apologetically explain to the authors that their article will not be published as it is too old? Moreover, it should not have been accepted in the first place. They have not paid any submission or publication fees.
- Or is the journal now obligated to publish their work as it has gone through peer review and been 'accepted'?
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.
This situation should never have arisen in the first place—the journal should take responsibility for their mistake and be as transparent and up-front as possible with the authors. The lack of payment is not relevant. Hence the journal editor should call the author, apologise, explain the situation, and ask the authors, given the length of time, change in leadership, and obvious errors on the part of the journal, would they be willing to work with the journal to revise the paper. The journal should offer to pay the costs for language editing.
The journal cannot reject the paper given that the paper was formally accepted. If a contract for publication consists of submission (ie, offer of work) and acceptance of that work, there is a moral, and likely, legal obligation to publish post acceptance.
The best way forward in this very awkward situation is to work with the authors to improve the paper. There are many good editorial services that can improve the paper; perhaps it would be best to subcontract the editing work, improving the presentation to them. Another round of peer review may be needed to ensure the scientific value is up to date and the equations are correct.
Another suggestion is to have a third party review what has happened here, as quickly as possible, and make a recommendation to the journal. But the journal would still need to apologise to the authors.