A case control study was submitted to a journal. It was subjected to the usual peer review processes. After the required revisions, the article was accepted for publication. After acceptance, the journal received a letter from the corresponding author (author A) with a request to add the name of a new author (author B). The journal declined, stating that it would be unethical.
The journal subsequently received another email from author C (first author) requesting the inclusion of author B in the author list. This was supported by a letter from the Directorate of Academics and Research signed by the Assistant Registrar, Academics and Research (ASRB). The letter stated that for valid reasons, the members of the ASRB took a joint decision that author B is the deserving supervisor and their name should be included as an author. They also advised that author D (the previous author, presumably the supervisor which had not been disclosed earlier) should be put in the acknowledgements section only. The authors sent the required new submission statement signed by all authors, including author B, but without author D.
The journal then received an email from author D which stated that due to a conflict of interest between author C and author D, they wanted to withdraw the article. The journal asked them to submit the withdrawal form signed by all authors, as required by the journal’s policies. No further information was received and the journal presumed that the authors wanted to continue with the publication of the article with the revised authors list. The article was published accordingly.
Shortly after publication, author D contacted the editor accusing the journal of unethical practices. Author D also said that the Dean who had provided the letter from the ASRB had some personal differences with author D and that this influenced their actions. Author D sent their grievances in writing, asking the journal to retract the article as the change in name was illegal and including author B was unethical.
Questions for COPE Council
- Should the journal retract the article until a decision is taken?
- How should the journal react given that the situation seems to be a matter of personal differences between the removed author and the remaining authors supported by their higher authorities?
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.
It seems the journal changed the authorship of an article without the consent of one of the coauthors (author D) but as advised by the university leadership (the Dean). COPE’s general advice is that journals cannot adjudicate author disputes and in such cases COPE suggests involving the institutions. If author D disagrees with the Dean's decision about who qualifies for authorship, is there someone higher at the university who could review this case further? If so, the journal might consider publishing an Expression of Concern while that process occurs. Although the institution has pre-empted the process where a journal would have sought the help of an institution, the case is incomplete as author D should now be launching an internal appeal with the institution. The institution needs to explain to the journal what the problem was: were there actually two supervisors who shared work equally; was the original difference in opinion between author C and author D about data interpretation that should have perhaps been included in the paper? Hence the interim expression of concern needs careful consideration and then a fuller explanation would be needed if a Correction is made later.
COPE's Retraction Guidelines state that it is 'not usually appropriate [to retract content] if a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings'. If the editor believes the material in the article is valid, then retraction does not seem the right remedy. If the material in the article is not believed to be valid (eg, there are allegations of research misconduct that seem substantive and the authors cannot reassure the editor that everything is in order), retraction might be the right concern.
Going forward, the editor should obtain consent from each coauthor before making any authorship changes (additions, deletions, author order, etc) following the initial manuscript submission. In general, it is not appropriate to remove an author's name without consent of all involved. The journal should have held off from publishing before all authors signed a letter agreeing to the new author byline, and even acknowledging author D should have had an associated declaration that author D gave permission to be named under the acknowledgements. It is not a good idea to publish an article when one author in the original paper has requested the article be withdrawn. However, all interactions need to have time limits built in so that non-responders cannot hold the process hostage.
The editor may need to indicate his/her own actions as concerning in this case, and perhaps indicate that new processes will be put in place at the journal to avoid similar situations in the future.
If the journal had asked for contributorship statements upfront, many of these problems could have been avoided. If a contributorship statement was not requested, the journal may wish to include this requirement in their editorial policies and submission requirements (using the CRediT taxonomy for example, or something similar). Having this statement enables editors to better understand what is happening, what may have gone wrong, and make better decisions when issues arise.