A journal received two emails from different individuals, both critical of a commentary published in the journal. One cited serious errors, the other noted inaccurate statements, incorrect literature citations and fundamental flaws regarding misinterpretations or over-interpretations which could affect public health. The second email also cited the potential for the commentary to be used for (unspecified) partisan purposes in country X and had been sent direct to the author, copying in the editor-in-chief. Both correspondents stated that a retraction was warranted.
The author of the commentary submitted a point-by-point response to the editor-in-chief. It concluded by recognizing the controversy around the commentary but said that the bullying tactics in demanding that the commentary be redacted/retracted were simply unprofessional and unethical.
The editor-in-chief invited the parties to submit a letter to the editor in which they could raise all of their critical points. Instead, one of them submitted a letter signed by 18 scientists in their home country in which they refuted points in the commentary and demanded that the commentary be retracted. A second invitation to submit a formal letter to the editor resulted in an aggressive letter citing COPE’s Code of Conduct on the responsibilities of the editor to correct errors and inaccurate or misleading statements promptly. It concluded by saying that if observable evidence was not provided within seven days of the letter that significant action had been substantially initiated or completed, that a formal complaint would be made to COPE.
The original commentary was reviewed by the editor-in-chief as well as one member of the editorial board. Both felt that while it concerns a controversial topic, the content was fine as a commentary. The original author of the commentary has claimed that their critics have not declared their competing interests. The journal is investigating whether the original author and/or their critics have any competing interests and what these are. At the time of submitting this case, they have received just over half of the conflicting interest declarations, and only one individual has declared a conflict. The journal’s own investigation has uncovered that at least two individuals included on emails to the author and editor have relations that are deemed potential conflicts of interest.
The publisher gave the published commentary along with a letter to the editor that the critics submitted, and a rebuttal piece that had been prepared by the authors of the commentary to a third party impartial individual. The third party agreed that there were unfortunate weaknesses in the commentary but that the heart of the argument was relevant. They further felt there were no grounds for a retraction or redaction and that a published exchange (based on the perceived issues only) would be a productive outcome. They noted, as the editors had also done, that there were likely to be unknown additional factors at stake.
The journal thus informed the critics that the case was being handled as a complaint even though they had not followed the complaints procedure, and also that the case was being submitted to COPE for guidance.
Questions for COPE Council
- Does the potential over-interpretation of results warrant a retraction of a commentary?
- Should any further action be taken with respect to further review of the published item?
- Is the proper course of action to ask the authors of the letter to revise their letter according to the reviewer’s comments and to publish this alongside the article? Based on the tone and volume of correspondence the journal is uncertain they will be willing to revise, and in this case is it appropriate for the editors to refuse to publish the letter?
- Is it appropriate to publish a rebuttal? Is the risk of escalating the situation too great?
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.
Council believe that the editor-in-chief and publisher have taken the appropriate steps, as indicated by COPE's guidelines. They have invited the commentary, sent the commentary to the authors for their comments, checked for competing interests from all parties, and asked for a third neutral party to review everything. If no misconduct has occurred and the situation merely represents an opinion piece that might be seen to be inflammatory, then an exchange of letters in response is perfectly reasonable. The editor-in-chief should not be held accountable for ‘exploitation by third parties’ of a paper or a commentary in the literature—that happens all the time. Council would agree with the course of action recommended by the third party—this seems reasonable and responsible. In addition, Council would suggest that publishing the letter to the editor and the rebuttal as soon as possible would be appropriate. The journal should also publish the process they followed in getting the letter and rebuttal reviewed by a third party.
To answer the specific questions:
- The possible over-interpretation of results could easily be corrected with a corrigendum permanently linked to the article.
- If the editor-in-chief is confident that the neutral reviewer was indeed neutral, then the one review is sufficient. If there is any doubt, could an editorial board member provide an opinion?
- Letters should be accepted on the basis that they stick to the point and are limited to a certain word count. They can be edited in-house rather than asking the authors to revise them. The editor-in-chief could also suggest that a correction will be made and linked to the article and they could also invite the neutral third party to submit an editorial or a letter instead of publishing the inflammatory text in question.
- It is appropriate to publish a rebuttal, which could be framed as a dialogue to dampen down the rhetoric. The editor-in-chief should also be sure that these processes are transparent within the author guidelines and that their actions are unbiased. In other words, has anything similar happened previously and if so, how was it handled?