Journal A accepted a commentary for publication. In the acceptance letter and communications with the authors, the editor requested the authors remove portions of their commentary that contained derogatory comments about individuals and the journal that were deemed inappropriate for discourse in a scholarly publication. The authors agreed to do so. Prior to sending the final version of their commentary to the editorial office, the authors posted an earlier version of their paper – with objectionable material – to a preprint site. The authors noted in the preprint what material would be removed prior to publication in the journal. In the published version of their paper, the authors linked to the preprint version. The editorial team was distressed that the authors used the journal to direct readers to material deemed objectionable and flagged it for removal prior to publication. The journal and its sponsoring society do not have a standing policy about what is appropriate to post in preprint form and the publisher typically encourages linking between preprints and published versions. Because there was no standing policy to prohibit such action, and to avoid the appearance of bias given that some of the objectionable material was targeted towards the journal, the editorial team allowed the link to be published.
Question for COPE Council
- Would it be appropriate to develop a policy prohibiting authors from referring readers in print to an unedited preprint that contains objectionable material (or other content deemed inappropriate for inclusion) that was not permitted to appear in the print version?
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 is a difficult and complicated question. If the goal of posting content to a preprint server is to get feedback prior to journal submission, posting to a preprint server following acceptance seems redundant. Some journals have a policy that allows content posted to a preprint server prior to journal submission, but not afterwards. This may be a better solution than developing the policy proposed here. Many others allow a preprint up to the editorial decision and then remove it automatically. However, the issue may be discipline specific. Other journals allow postings to preprint servers at any point in the lifetime of a manuscript. Some authors like to maintain confidentiality and only post after acceptance and others even post upon publication, although these are in the minority.
The advice is to be very cautious in creating policies based on a single event no matter how distressing it may be. The proposal outlined here seems like a policy made in response to an exceptional case. The preprint does not contain any confidential or fraudulent information, "just" derogatory comments. Trying to develop a clear policy concerning prohibitions based on objectionable content may lead to greater difficulties and liabilities. Also, how would the journal enforce such a policy? Would the journal retract this commentary if the preprint was posted or discovered after publication?
This is a complicated issue in that many preprint servers have virtually no standards for submission. The journal asks the appropriate question of the need to develop standards for authors with respect to their submission to preprint servers.
Most people use a preprint server for the purpose it is intended—to get work out for comment before publication. However, in this case the authors took advantage of the absence of a policy, and violated the spirit both of publication in a reviewed journal and of the purpose of preprint servers. The authors seemed to want to bypass the editorial process to be able to continue to make their derogatory comments. If the derogatory comments are sufficiently objectionable, they should be brought to the attention of the preprint server moderators or preprint server’s oversight board. The journal could check with a lawyer to determine whether the original comments are libellous, and also check the conditions of use of the preprint server. The server may have instructions that it does not allow libellous material, and/or material already accepted by a journal. An additional problem here is that a link was made, after the fact, to content that is objectionable. In other circumstances, a journal would issue an expression of concern. If the authors need to withdraw the preprint but do not, an expression of concern could be posted.
Ultimately, the Journal has published a sanitized version of the article and is not responsible for what the authors have posted on the preprint server.
Independent of that issue, the journal, like many other journals, needs to create a policy regarding how it deals with preprint servers (and other informal publication methods). Hence the advice to the journal is to follow their own policy on preprints. If they do not have a policy on preprints, then they should produce one and communicate it to their readership appropriately. This will safeguard them prospectively.