The Editor-in-Chief of a journal received a message from a corresponding author of a brief communication, stating that the proposed editorial edits were beyond typical formatting edits at this stage. They felt said many edits were not appropriate, would need further response and suggested holding this article (which had already been in process with the journal for over a year) for the next editor-in-chief when they are appointed.
The section editor recommended the article for acceptance with the proposed editorial revisions and overall there was agreement that the revisions improved readability and clarity especially for readers that may not be well acquainted with the overall topic of the paper. There had also been some issues during the review process with the authors not always complying with recommendations from the section editor.
The present Editor-in-Chief has decided not to renew their contract, based on repeat anonymous accusations that the timelines of the journal are too long. Importantly, the society has agreed to a policy on editorial independence for the advertised post for a replacement, granting the Editor-in-Chief full authority over the editorial content of the journal, including the type, selection, format, and timing of content for publication.
Question for COPE Council
- Has the author the right to hold off production and publication of an article that has absorbed a considerable amount of time already?
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.
The editor has the right to edit, for journal style, grammar, readability etc. The author has the right to disagree and has a right not to publish. They cannot be forced to publish if they disagree with the edits. It is unfortunate that these minor issues of style are being dealt with so late in the process and after such a long time since the paper was submitted. Each party insisting on their rights, however, does not bring the matter closer to resolution. Therefore it is best to find common ground and to try to work with the author.
In principle, the author's goals and the editor's goals should overlap considerably: getting good information into the hands of readers, clarity, timely publication, etc. The editor may wish to try to find a way to negotiate a solution. The editor and the handling editor might want to have a conversation/conference call with the author and explain the need for clarity, the importance of doing some hand-holding for readers who are unfamiliar, but also express a willingness to let the author explain why some of the edits are not "appropriate" and hold back some of the "excessive" editing in the hopes of finding a way through here. Alternatively the authors could be given the opportunity to email back annotations showing areas that need further work. The editor can give a deadline for a decision from the authors. The editor needs to explain that if the authors decline or do not reply by a certain date, the acceptance of the paper would be rescinded and any post-acceptance author fees refunded depending on journal policy.
If that fails, another option would be to use another senior editor of the journal (independent of the earlier process and with no conflicts of interest) to arbitrate the case, with both sides agreeing to accept the outcome.
The editor may wish to check that the journal guidelines clearly state the procedure about copy, technical, and/or style editing and formatting, so that authors know what to expect. It should also be pointed out that the journal has the right to edit content that is offensive, biased, factually wrong, libellous, etc. These issues sometimes do not come to light until post-acceptance editing; acceptance after peer review does not mean the accepted version is going to be published as it is.