A journal received a paper that had previously been retracted from another publisher’s journal as a result of malpractice in the peer review process (a result of reviewer/editor misconduct rather than actions on the part of the authors).
Having reviewed various sources of guidance, it would appear that there is some precedent for re-publication of retracted papers (suitably corrected or updated) but that Editors/Publishers are not in agreement as to whether this is appropriate or how this should be approached.
Aside from making a judgement on whether the submission is ‘redundant’ to the record, the journal’s main concern is that, if they consider the paper, they should avoid breaching the copyright/publishing agreement made between the other publisher and the authors.
Question for COPE Council
- Is there any guidance that COPE can provide on how a retracted article should be treated in this type of circumstance?
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.
As there was a malpractice in the peer review or editorial process leading to an understandable retraction, then legally the previous publishing agreement is now null and void and can be set aside (as the previous publisher had not fully fulfilled, as required, their part of the publishing contract). There should be no copyright issue with the article. But the journal may wish to confirm with a lawyer or their own legal department.
The authors should not be penalised for incompetence on the part of the other journal so they are free to submit their work to another journal and seek publication of their work. The authors should make absolutely sure that their paper is up-to-date and any possible research errors are corrected. We would suggest that the paper needs to be handled carefully by any new journal. The paper should obviously be reviewed by experienced reviewers. In this case perhaps the number of reviewers could be increased to provide additional assurance for the journal editors and publisher.
We would also suggest adding disclosure of the article history in the published paper. This would help ensure transparency, and possibly mitigate future complications if readers dig up the previously retracted version.
This might also be an opportunity for an editorial explaining the seriousness of peer review compromise.