Journal A received an article by Dr X (Article 1) commenting on another author’s work (Dr. Y) which had been published in Journal A and another journal (Journal B) of a different publisher. Because the scientific arguments were involved, and because the articles being criticised had been cited many times in the literature, the Editors of Journal A rejected Dr X's request to publish the work as a 'Comment'. They explained that should Dr X revise the submission as a regular article, with a complete reference list and with a complete discussion of the body of scientific work, they would consider taking the new manuscript under review. Dr X then submitted a new, much longer, manuscript with a complete reference list. The manuscript was reviewed by two experts and underwent two major revisions before being recommended for acceptance. The article was subsequently published.
After publication of the article, Dr Y sent a letter objecting to the publication on the following grounds:
- The article contained unprofessional and disrespectful language.
- The scientific criticisms of the equations were incorrect.
- Publication of the article violated stated policies of the Publisher.
The Editor-in-Chief suggested that Dr Y submit a Comment of their own seeking to correct any significant errors in the recently published article by Dr X. Dr Y explained in a second letter that they could not submit a Comment because of a conflict of interest. Two years previously Dr Y had recommended a withdrawal of Dr X’s Doctor of Science degree based on multiple cases of plagiarism and recycling fraud found in their works. In addition, earlier in the year in which Article 1 had been published, Dr Y was informed that an allegation of scientific fraud in regard to one of their own papers in Journal B had been made to their institution by Dr X. As a result, Dr Y could not publicly engage in a criticism of Dr X or their work as the case was still pending. Dr Y again appealed to the Publisher to retract the work due to its noncompliance with the company’s editorial policy and ethics standards. A note has been sent to Dr Y informing them that the Publisher is investigating this issue.
The Publisher has concluded that:
- The tone and language of the paper by Dr X are not appropriate for publication. There are a number of inflammatory statements that gave the impression that the article should not have been published in its present form.
- Dr X had an undisclosed conflict of interest that would have better informed the peer review process. Had the past relationship between Dr X and Dr Y been revealed, the Editors would have handled the manuscript differently and this may be a basis for retraction.
- The validity of the scientific arguments made in the paper by Dr X needed to be further explored. At the present time, the published article is under review by independent experts to determine its validity.
Questions for COPE Council
- If the scientific criticisms expressed in the paper are sound, should it be retracted?
- Should the Publisher retract the article based on the undisclosed conflict of interest alone?
- Does COPE have other recommendations on how to handle the paper?
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 role of the editor/publish is to edit and publish a journal, not referee a fight between feuding academics where it is not clear if all the facts are known. The initial article by Dr Y was published because the science was viewed as appropriate at the time. Dr X's review of Dr Y's work and the surrounding literature was published because it was regarded as contributing to an understanding of the science. Unless malpractice is being suggested specifically for those articles—which appears not to be the case—the other issues are not relevant. It is certainly not the role of the journal to arbitrate the authors' dispute on whether plagiarism may have occurred with other, unspecified publications. Thus if author Y chooses to reply to author X's review, it should only be on scientific grounds, and if author Y does not reply, then that is the end of the matter. Having author X's review examined by experts is reasonable under the circumstances as insurance. There are no grounds for retraction here. A correction could be considered depending on the outcome of the review.
The journal could have saved itself a lot of problems if it had approached Dr Y at the time of Dr X's submission and allowed them to defend their work, especially if 'The tone and language of the paper by Dr X are not appropriate for publication'.
Regarding author Y's allegation that 'publication of the article violated stated policies of the publisher', we would suggest that if there were violations of policies, the publisher needs to be transparent about this, perhaps in an editorial or comment.