An opinion piece on a polarising political and technological topic was published. A discussion ensued on social media, and shortly after, the publisher received a formal complaint stating that the editor-in-chief of the journal, who had managed the peer review process for the manuscript, had a conflict of interest and should not have made the final acceptance decision. When the publishing team looked into this concern, they determined a conflict of interest was likely present, and requested and received a statement from the editor-in-chief about the history of the manuscript. The complaint was then referred to the publisher’s integrity and ethics group for review.
The integrity and ethics group started an investigation following an established process. The group concluded that another round of peer review with an unbiased handling editor would be appropriate to uphold the integrity of the journal’s review process and to ensure transparency around possible conflicts of interest. This plan was communicated to the authors. The authors responded stating that they were concerned that given the nature of the controversy, and the post-publication debate, that another round of peer review may either prove inconclusive or result in retraction based on compromised peer review. The journal operates a single anonymised process so the authors will be known to any new reviewers. The authors contend that they were not the cause of the conflict of interest in the initial review process and therefore a second round of peer review places an unfair burden on the future of their article.
Opinion pieces in this journal act as a forum for debate in the field and layout topics for future research. As such, we do not consider it likely that retraction will be the ultimate decision following post-publication peer review. The authors have stated their concerns that given the highly public nature of this topic and the article, most if not all researchers who have sufficient background in this field and on this specific topic that could serve as handling editor or reviewer have already chosen a side of the argument, often publicly. In other words, the new peer reviewers and handling editor will naturally harbor bias and that will impact their decision or reaction from the community to the ultimate outcome.
Questions for the Forum
- Should the publisher proceed as planned and carry out post-publication peer review. While reviewers and the handling editor may have a stated view on the topic, the publisher can give clear guidelines on the circumstances of the post-publication review to ensure that the paper is reviewed based on its scientific merit, strictly inline with the journal’s established process for opinion pieces, rather than on the basis of any professional or personal opinion the reviewer or editor may hold. Any revisions that result from post-publication peer review will be added to the published article as an erratum along with a disclosure of the editor-in-chief’s conflict of interest.
- As an alternative to post-publication peer review, should the publisher issue a statement attached to the article confirming the editor-in-chief’s conflict of interest in play during the initial round of peer review. The wording and statement would be agreed with the editor-in-chief.
The Forum agreed with the journal that post-publication peer review could be conducted. Authors are never happy to have their article peer reviewed after publication, especially if they are not at fault, but editors are responsible for ensuring that papers are properly peer reviewed. If an issue arises after publication, the journal has a responsibility to ensure that appropriate peer review has been carried out. The editor can then make a decision based on this information. The Forum acknowledged that opinion pieces can be difficult to peer review, and there is a risk of different opinions from different reviewers.
An expression of concern or an editor’s note could be published to alert readers to the possible conflict of interest in this opinion piece. It might be more appropriate for the note to come from the publisher, rather than the editor, or the society, if the journal is owned by a society.
The Forum advised that the journal might want to educate editors and editorial office staff on recusing themselves if they have a conflict in a similar situation in the future.
The advice from COPE was carefully considered. Given the published article was an opinion piece on a polarising political and technological topic it was felt that it would be extremely difficult to find unbiased peer reviewers who could review the article fairly, especially because of the public discussion that had already taken place on social media. Given that the article was not original research and that the authors presented valid arguments and sound conclusions, the integrity and ethics group decided not to undertake further peer review. However, the publisher wanted to transparently acknowledge the conflict of interest that was present and to make readers aware of what happened. The article was therefore amended with a note from the publisher explaining the investigation and the steps that were taken. The complainant was separately informed of the resolution, and a copy of the note from the publisher was shared once published. The publisher also raised awareness with editors on potential conflicts of interest via a webinar and with written guidance.