A reviewer for Journal X declined to review a paper as author Y has been the subject of a sexual harassment investigation. Author Y left the institute before the result of the investigation, thereby avoiding the outcome of the case. There is an academic loophole which allows those accused of misconduct to avoid any potential consequences by resigning before the outcome of the investigation, meaning there will be no permanent record. Therefore, as there is no official outcome, the Editor decided to continue to have the paper peer reviewed.
Questions for the Forum
- Should the editor have behaved differently?
- For papers where authors have been accused of sexual misconduct should Editors/Journals decline to have the paper reviewed, or take any other actions?
- If the author had been found guilty (rather than accused), would that change the advice? There are multiple authors on this paper and any action would punish them all, but removing the offending author would also interfere with the scientific record.
- Should any sanctions be taken against authors who have sexual or other criminal records?
The Forum agreed that this is a very difficult issue but one which publishers are having to deal with more frequently. It is particularly difficult to propose a general set of actions which will fit each case partly because of their complexity and partly because of local cultural and legal differences. However, attention is drawn to a discussion of a similar issue on Retraction Watch:
Discussions on how to handle this and similar cases touch on the frequent lack of definite evidence or the fact that formal cases may still be open or being appealed. Those accused, whether formally or informally, may have moved institution or left academia, but this leaves any co-authors at risk of discrimination by association. Individuals who have been cleared of charges may suffer similarly, and it is difficult to handle submissions which are made later: when should any sanctions end? Should different actions be taken if an individual has been convicted as opposed to accused of a misdemeanour of this nature? Ultimately, it is unclear how far it is within the remit of journals and publishers – as opposed to institutions - to investigate such cases especially when they may affect submissions to other journals as well. However, failure to respond risks reputational harm to the journal.
One solution is to consider where such concerns intersect with other policies which have existing workflows such as conflict of interest policies (which may affect both potential reviewers and editors). Publishers could also review their guidance on professional misconduct to consider whether it could encompass behavioural misconduct, and editors can consult the wider editorial board for advice too, since they are representatives of the community served by the journal.
Another solution is for publishers, journals, and organisations like COPE to work together to expand their policies on author misconduct to encompass situations like this and to raise the standard of expected behaviour. COPE is currently working on some guidance on author behavioural misconduct which will be available soon.
The paper was rejected after peer review. No consensus can be found on how to deal with authors accused/found guilty of sexual harassment.