Society journal X and propriety journal Y have received complaints regarding historic papers published in their journals (generating a lot of anger on twitter). The papers outline a practise the society (who had a historic role in its development) no longer endorse. The society has released an apology about their involvement with the practise, but the practice itself is not illegal (in the majority of countries). The authors of the papers in journals X and Y have expressed regret of their involvement with the research.
The editor and society are unclear on how best to deal with historical papers that would now be judged immoral by current cultural standards. These papers are not scientifically incorrect, nor illegal, therefore what (if any) action should be taken? They are also concerned with forming not only a resolution to this individual case, but a clear policy/guideline for any future cases of a similar kind. The editors and society are concerned that retracting these papers would erase, not only the historical record, but also have the potential to undermine the analytical course by how science progresses. Despite this, the society and editors want to acknowledge the potential harm the science detailed in the papers have.
A few suggestions have been generated on how to address the practice outlined in the papers:
- Developing a new editorial concern statement/disclaimer to be published with the paper.
- Having the authors (or editors) write an editorial on their paper
- Retract the papers (the publisher does not recommend this option)
The editors/society have a number of concerns regarding these options:
- Who is the best person to decide the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ of a paper – the editor, the society, the publisher? Editors are not philosophers and have their own morality, therefore are they the right person to decided what is ‘wrong’?
- What would happen when the editor changes? Would they be able to remove any disclaimers? As culture develops a disclaimer may itself become out of date.
- To what type of papers would disclaimers apply to – those considered only ‘morally’ wrong? What about papers decided scientifically wrong?
- The journals maintain editorial independence therefore if a morality decision came from anyone other than the editor would this have ramifications for the journals’ independence?
- Having an expression of concern/disclaimer published on a paper has legal implications as authors may not agree with the statement published, how should that be dealt with?
- If a practice is not illegal, should any action be taken?
- What does the society/editors owe the community if they think the practice is wrong/harmful? In this case the methodology has proven worth, but in these papers the practice has been applied in a way now considered inappropriate.
- An editorial is not linked to a paper and may act to draw further community anger to either the authors and/or the editor/society.
Questions for the Forum
- If the content of a paper has over time become generally viewed as morally unacceptable could and/or should any action be taken?
- If harm to subjects/clients is one of the potential outcomes of the therapy, does that lead to a different action? If so, how should it be addressed? What actions should be taken?
- Are the concerns of the editors/society valid? Should any of the options suggested be undertaken?
- Should there be guidelines on how to deal, in general, with ‘problematic’ papers published in a journal’s back issues? If so, who is best placed to develop these? Should this be done on a society, editor, publisher level, or by an organisation such as COPE?
This is a difficult and important issue, and one that is becoming increasingly common in the scholarly publishing community. More guidance would be useful as publishers are currently taking different approaches, and COPE is working on a discussion document within its DEIA subcommittee. Further resources can be found below.
Cases such as this become complex because they touch on how far journal and publisher teams should be involved in making moral judgements on article content and the extent to which they need to review their entire back catalogue for consistency in their response. There are also definitional issues in determining whether past publications should now be deemed offensive, and whether this involved flawed methodologies, potential societal harm, or interpretation or analysis now deemed as unsavoury. Problems with the methodology or the risk of societal harm would make retraction or an editorial comment or note more appropriate; interpretation or analysis which has aged poorly might suggest a lighter touch approach. Research which has been conducted unethically is included in COPE’s retraction guidelines as a reason for retraction, although this is complex when considering situations where ethical standards have changed since the article was published. However, the legality of the methodology or behaviours reported may be less relevant since this should not necessarily prevent discussion of a topic. It is likely that each case will need to be assessed individually, based on its specific details.
The Forum heard several suggestions for possible actions, including the use of disclaimers or ‘flags’ on individual articles, and general position statements on the historic context of language now deemed offensive (see, for example, an article by the Journal of the American Medical Association). Concerns were voiced that disclaimers could stigmatise the authors, and also imply the journal’s endorsement of all non-disclaimered articles. The work involved in re-assessing back catalogues could be enormous and should not necessarily be seen as essential. Editors could, for example, carry out searches for similar articles when one is flagged as problematic, or set a date limit on how far back in their catalogue they will go in making reassessments.
In broader terms it may be helpful to think in terms of encouraging the progression of ideas in research, for example by inviting articles, post-publication critiques or editorials which discuss the misunderstandings which have arisen in the field, the immorality or nature of the unacceptablility, or how knowledge has changed. Editors may feel pressure to take a stance on a controversial issue, but they should be careful to maintain editorial independence from owners, societies, publishers or the media. However, more direct action such as a commentary or editorial note, may be appropriate where there is the potential for societal harm if the article’s recommendations are followed. On the other hand editors should think about whether such action would draw more attention to the paper than it is currently receiving.
The Forum agreed that further guidelines will be useful. The forthcoming COPE guidelines will address some of the issues reviewed here and other resources can be found below:
- Simone Ragavooloo, Helen Macdonald and Kamran Abbasi, ‘Acting on historically offensive content in BMJ’s archive’, BMJ 2022; 378:o1829 doi
- ‘Advice to the NEJM on dealing with old influential articles with undisclosed COIs’, BMJ blog,
- The Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing, led by the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Both journals decided to leave the historic papers as they are and not retract them. The Society journal is still looking into potentially having disclaimers.