Recently, Journal X received a letter to the editor based on an article published in another journal about 8 years previously. The editors of Journal X believe this letter is important to their readers.
The original article was a seminal paper which changed practice. However, a group of authors challenged some of the data published in this trial in a subsequent review published about 7 years ago and asked for further analyses. The original authors of the trial paper said they would release the data. However, since that time, the first author has died, and access to the data from any of the institutions or the rest of the authors has not been possible. The journal that published the original paper feels this is not within their remit because it is outside the time limit of considering letters to the editor.
The authors of the letter have therefore written to Journal X in the hope they can get some response and make their concerns known to their readers. The editors of Journal X are keen to publish this letter and we have had legal advice which stated that it is important enough to warrant publication.
The letter has been reviewed by at least five expert referees in the field who all recommend publication but after seeking legal advice.
Questions for COPE Council
- Journal X would prefer to publish a ‘Perspectives article’ and would like advice on whether to invite the original corresponding author to respond. They feel that would be in the interest of the community.
- Should they also write to the EiC of the journal who published the original paper and inform them of the planned publication of this piece?
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.
This is an interesting and important case. It is important to publish good scholarship, particularly when it informs practice.
According to the recent COPE flowchart “Handling of post-publication critiques” (although this case involves a different journal from the one containing the article bring critiqued), claims of ethical issues, such as questionable data integrity, need to be approached and investigated in the usual way first.
We assume from your question that this has been attempted but without a clear resolution. In such case, we agree that publishing the letter to the editor after seeking legal advice would seem to be appropriate. Given the length of time since publication of the original article, publishing the piece as a perspectives article, rather than a letter to the editor, is a good solution. The editor could send a courtesy note to the editor of the journal that published the original article to advise them of the publication of the letter. Also, informing readers why the letter was published in journal X, and not the original journal, would help readers understand the decision making process regarding why the letter was published in a different journal. The editors might consider writing an accompanying editorial to address the integrity issues.