A journal recently handled a research paper related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper was deemed of interest and sent for external peer review. Because it accrued reasonably positive reviews it was scheduled for discussion at one of the weekly manuscript meetings where research editors and a statistician make final decisions on a number of papers.
A few days before the meeting, it came to the journal’s attention that the integrity and provenance of the data on which the study was based had been called into question following expressions of editorial concern about other studies published in high profile journals that used data from the same source and had some of the same authors. Further investigations into those papers and the data source are underway but have not concluded.
Prior to the meeting, the journal decided that given these concerns, they would not proceed with the paper. The obvious thing to do would be to reject the paper, but by holding it, the journal can also prevent it being published elsewhere.
Questions for COPE Council
- Does COPE agree with this course of action and what, if any, additional steps should the journal be taking.
- What else should the journal do apart from rejecting the article?
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.
There are no grounds to simply hold onto the paper. The journal's options are conditional acceptance (typically with revisions), rejection, or identification of misconduct after appropriate review, following COPE's flowchart on 'What to do if you suspect fabricated data in a submitted manuscript', involving the institution if or when appropriate. Holding on to a paper to prevent publication elsewhere is not the job of the editor, is disingenuous to the authors, and is making a judgement without due process (the data have been called into question, no more).
One option might be to reject the work, probably with a strongly worded letter about the data source, urging the authors not to re-submit elsewhere until the data source has been adequately vetted.
Alternatively, the editor could raise these concerns with the corresponding author (as indicated in COPE's flowchart) before making a decision. The journal could offer to let the authors withdraw their paper or await the results of the other journal's investigation. The authors could be requested to notify the journal when the investigation is complete and what the results are, if the authors wish to continue to try to publish in the journal rather than submit their article elsewhere.
If the journal has specific concerns about the data, the journal could ask for access to the data and seek an expert analysis of the data. If these are not provided, then rejection is warranted. Of course, if there is a concern about whether a large database or data source is not what it appears to be, if it has been corrupted, lacks integrity, etc, the journal cannot easily audit this, and in most cases it is beyond a journal's ability to remediate.
The editor’s 'suspicion' needs to be explained to the authors in neutral terms, noting the journal's knowledge of the expression of concern and that the name of the database used has been mentioned in several retractions involving some or all of the same authors. If innocent, the authors could readily give a satisfactory explanation.
Other factors to consider in deciding how to proceed include whether a false declaration has been made on submission (eg, some journals ask all authors to confirm they had full access to all the data) as well as possible salami slicing.