The Journal received an article for possible publication with three coauthors listed. The article was initially reviewed and accepted by the editorial committee. Then it was processed under double-anonymous peer review policy. Minor changes were requested which the authors implemented, and the article was accepted for publication. Before final printing, one of the authors (third author, previously a lecturer in a college), got a job as a lecturer in a university. The corresponding author sent a request to change the affiliation of the third author and add their new affiliation.
Questions for COPE Council
- Which institutional affiliation should be retained in the printed version – the previous one or the new one?
- Does it make a difference? Some institutions get ranking when an article is published with an institutional affiliation, so in this case, what would COPE suggest?
- How should the editor proceed?
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 norm is to list the institution where the work was done and indicate in a footnote the new corresponding address/email (or if already a footnote, the new affiliation/contact follows immediately). It seems that minimal work (if any) was done at the new institution, so the affiliation should reflect where the work was done. Politically, the new institution may want the new publication, and the author may wish to help in that. However, the work was done at the early institution on their salary so the resulting article should have their affiliation but with a note to give the author's new address.
The case highlights the advantages of authors having an ORCID account where the complete history of their affiliations would be posted.