A journal received a complaint from readership about manipulation of images of gels and also of some figures which had been published as part of a thesis with different sample legends. The authors were contacted to provide explanations for the observed inconsistencies. The authors provided full images and then an official expert analysis, but the Editor-in-Chief did not feel that these responses satisfactorily addressed all the issues queried and the university was asked to investigate. The university confirmed that the investigation procedure was underway but could not predict how long it would take. At the Editor-in-Chief's request, the university agreed to keep the journal informed of progress with the investigation. Despite prompting, no response had been received over 3 and a half months later.
Questions for COPE Council
- How long should the journal allow for an institutional investigation before they make a decision based on the information available?
- Would the absence of any further correspondence or update from the University change the length of time the journal should allow for the investigation?
- While waiting for the outcome of the investigation and assuming the issue is considered a priority by the University, is it ethically acceptable to publish an Expression of Concern based on the information the journal has at their disposal? And can this Expression of Concern be further modified (retracted or replaced by a Retraction decision) once the final outcome of the University investigation is known?
- Are current concerns sufficient for a Retraction decision without waiting any longer?
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 approach of posting an expression of concern seems appropriate in these circumstances. An expression of concern says 'we are worried about the validity of the data behind this article and are investigating the matter'. Saying nothing would be a disservice to readers as it would imply that there is nothing untoward, which is not what is currently believed. If that belief turns out to be unfounded, then the expression of concern can be removed, or it can be changed to a retraction if the university investigation confirms the wrongdoing. Once there is sufficient concern to notify an institution, then an expression of concern is appropriate almost immediately, especially when the Institution agrees to carry out an investigation.
University investigations are generally very slow in their deliberations. There are usually committees involved, of colleagues as well as administrators, and the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and the right to be represented either by an ombudsperson or legal counsel compounds the length and complexity of the process. There is also often an appeal process for those who disagree with the determination of the investigation, which makes the timeline even more protracted.
To the question of whether a unilateral retraction is appropriate, on the evidence supplied it is clear that the authors have allayed the journal’s concerns in part, so it is conceivable that they may be able to provide explanations for the other issues. Hence it may be premature to issue a retraction based on the evidence at hand. In any case, the institution is much closer to the details, so it is advisable, despite the delay, to wait for their findings. In the US for example, (1) the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) will not provide updates to anyone of an ongoing investigation and (2) the ORI suggests that journals make their own decisions about retraction or expression of concern because the outcome of the investigation may not necessarily recommend a retraction as part of a finding.
But a resolution of the expression of concern needs to happen at some point in the future—either the authors will be absolved and the journal can revoke the expression of concern with a notice about the findings of the investigation or change the expression of concern to a retraction if required.
Publishing an EoC might also speed up the investigation or at least prompt a response from the institution. The summer months are also likely to be a long university break or when it is difficult to convene committee meetings. Hence the journal could perhaps contact the university by email, phone, fax, registered mail again with a final deadline.