The paper in question describes a collaborative study of several datasets (not all previously published). A putative referee was asked to review the paper and declined. However, this led to a written complaint asserting that (s)he should be an author as (s)he had made a significant contribution to some of the work described in the paper.
After promising comments from referees, the existing authors were invited to resubmit, but asked to resolve the authorship issue before resubmission. The paper has now been revised and resubmitted, but is currently "stalled". The authors say that the individual making the complaint does not deserve to be an author. The complainant has still not seen the paper, but continues to feel strongly that (s)he should be an author.
The institution at which the work in question was done has been contacted, and is investigating. A related complaint has been made previously, and does not appear to have been resolved satisfactorily—there are various arguments for and against the claim for authorship and plans are afoot to convene a panel with the appropriate attributes (independence, familiarity with legal issues, and scientific culture, etc). One co-author has a joint appointment at two institutes, and so both directors will need to be involved in the process.
Is the way in which the putative referee obtained confidential information objectionable?
Have the authors acted improperly in not sending the paper to the complainant?
How best can we now balance the interests of the authors, complainant (the complaint may be genuine or malicious), and indeed other people who might wish to be authors too?
What should be done regarding possible publication?
Although not strictly an authorship dispute, it was questioned whether it is the editor’s job to resolve this type of dispute. The general consensus was that the complaint should be investigated at the author’s institition, with the paper put “on hold” for the time being. Three months might be a reasonable time frame in which to expect the issue to be resolved. Other advice offered was that the paper could be published, and the complainant then given an opportunity to air his or her views in a letter.
The institution agreed to undertake an investigation into the dispute and indicated that the investigation would not only cover this particular dispute but also other incidences between the same individuals. The paper is currently “on hold” awaiting the outcome of the dispute
The claimant then contacted the editor and the corresponding author of the paper stating that he now wishes to withdraw his claim to authorship because “he had been advised about what it would entail to continue to press his case for authorship and he now thinks the costs to all concerned do not justify the possible gains”. However, he continues, “I still maintain I have been done an injustice”.
The journal editors have discussed this case and have decided to await the outcome of the investigation. The editor was then separately contacted by the senior author of the paper saying that the journal should make up its own mind and he does not mind whatever the editor decides. The editor has written back saying that he would like to await the investigation’s result.
In the meantime, the head of the department, who previously said that he was leading this investigation, has written to the editor informing him that he has abandoned the investigation as the claimant has withdrawn his claim to authorship.
What should the editors do now?
The advice was to write to the institution asking if the other claims had been withdrawn and, if not, informing them that they should carry on the investigation, pointing out that this is still an authorship dispute between the author and the institution. If no satisfactory response is received from the head of department, the editors should consider approaching a higher authority, possibly the dean of the university. The committee felt that an investigation should be carried out and it might we worth contacting the the UK Panel for Research Integrity in Health and Biomedical Sciences to ask them to suggest an independent party to sit on an enquiry.
Update (August 2007)
After various twists and turns, the institution at which the plaintiff had worked convened a panel of three prominent experts, including one independent person, to investigate the allegation. The report mentioned that authorship is often difficult in meta-analytic publications, and concluded that the plaintiff “was, in our opinion, done no injustice”.
This case seems to have been satisfactorily, if slowly, resolved. We have informed the plaintiff, thanked our contact at the institution and are proceeding to publish the paper.