Some time after publishing a paper, a journal received a comment highlighting serious issues with the methods reported, and claiming that the conclusions could not be trusted. The comment was 13 pages long and rather technical in nature, so it was peer reviewed.
The journal contacted the authors to respond to the comment but they replied that they wished instead to completely remove the paper in order to protect their reputation. They also claimed that the comment was libellous and a personal attack, however in the view of the journal it is a balanced criticism that only discusses the methods used. When the journal explained that a withdrawal would be titled a retraction and that the original article would still be available from their website (as recommended by COPE), the authors changed their mind and said they would write a rebuttal to the comment.
The journal did not receive a response from the author and decided that, given the nature of the comments, the best option was to retract the paper. When the journal informed them, the authors once again said they would provide a reply. Instead, the journal received a ‘Notification of dispute’ containing legal threats, and stating that legally ‘right to be forgotten’ legislation means that complete removal of the article should be possible. It also stated that publication of the comment would constitute defamation.
In the journal’s view, the authors have been given ample opportunity to produce a published response to the comment, and publication of the comments after peer review would not cause defamation to the authors, especially if they are allowed to respond (the comment was submitted more than a year ago). A further complication is that the editor-in-chief of the journal recently changed and, given the legal threats, the current editor-in-chief does not want to be involved further in this dispute.
Questions for COPE Council
- Although the authors have refuted some of the comments on their paper in personal communication, they have not done so in a format that could be published. How long is reasonable to wait for a response?
- If the journal publishes a retraction, would it be necessary to publish the comments that led to the retraction? Would it be sufficient to publish the retraction and comment stating that the authors were given the opportunity to respond and that they disagree with they journal’s decision?
- Has anyone had any experience of totally removing an article? Are there grounds for doing so, except where the article contained something that could not legally be published? Are there implications from recent “Right to be forgotten” legislation?
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.
Council’s understanding is that the Right to be Forgotten pertains to private information about individuals. However, it is strongly advised that legal counsel is sought. There are rare instances where an article is removed completely 'when deemed legally necessary', but the legal team should be the ones to make that call. The same applies to the threat of defamation proceedings. The advice is to first seek a recommendation from your legal team.
If the editor decides to retract the paper, there seems little reason to publish a 13-page comment. A one-line explanation for the retraction should suffice.
If the editor does not wish to retract the article (ie, if they are convinced there is no issue of defamation, and there is simply a difference of opinion between the original authors who think their methods were sound, and the writer of the 13 page comment who do not), it would seem reasonable to send one more note to the original authors along the lines of 'We’ve received a comment on your paper. It is lengthy and substantive. Because of the complexities involved, we have had it reviewed by external experts, and our intention is to publish it. We have given you a year to respond, but you have not done so. We are writing to you in the spirit of fairness to offer you one final opportunity to do so. We would like your response in the next two weeks. If you need more time, please let us know when we can expect your reply. What we cannot do is let an article stand in the literature when scientific questions have been raised about it; in fairness to our readers, this sort of post-publication dialogue is essential. If we have not heard from you, we will publish the comment without your reply'. If the authors refuse to reply formally and answer the points, then an editorial note can be added that the authors were invited but declined to reply.
Ultimately the decision of how best to correct the literature should fall to the editor, so the complication that the new editor-in-chief does not want to be involved is unacceptable. The new editor-in-chief is not in a position to wash their hands of this. It is their job to handle the situation, in collaboration with their board and other experts (eg, legal counsel) as needed. It is irrelevant that the paper was submitted/published before their tenure as editor-in-chief.
No matter how this is approached—retraction or comment—it is important for there to be clarity. This means that the points raised by the commenter will have to be published. A 'public' discussion of the issues allows the readership to come to their own understanding.