Journal A received an original article (article B) with three coauthors which showed substantial similarities with a single-authored article accepted in the same journal a few months previously (article A). The author of article A was one of the three coauthors of article B.
The journal contacted the corresponding author of article B (Author 2) to inform them of the similarities between their article and article A. Author 2 acknowledged that, in essence, the content of both articles was the same. They also informed the journal that there was a collaboration agreement between themselves and the single author of article A (Author 1) to develop the project and jointly publish the results obtained. Author 2 provided the journal with documentation confirming the registration of research projects in their own institution and that of the third coauthor (Author 3); approval from the Research and Ethics Commission of the institution to which Authors 2 and 3 belonged; and a registry of collaborators of the institution to which Authors 2 and 3 belonged, listing the authors as follows: Author 3: Academic responsible Author 2: Technical manager Author 1: Technical manager.
Author 2 asked if they should rewrite the article or desist from publication in order 'to proceed legally'. The journal confirmed that the article could not proceed in that journal or any other. Author 2 replied that they had registered an official record at their institution and were waiting for their answer. Several months later the journal contacted Author 2 again to enquire about the progress of this issue. They were informed that the issue had been ratified before the legal department of the institution and that 'it will follow its legal process'. No documentation was enclosed to support the submission of an official complaint. Author 2 did not reply to a request from the journal to send a formal complaint which set out their allegations and what was requested from the journal. The journal informed Author 2 that they would contact Author 1.
The journal then contacted Author 1 to ask for their version of the facts. They replied that they had no knowledge that Author 2 had submitted article 2 to the journal; that the research collected in both articles (articles 1 and article 2) was carried out exclusively by Author 1; that Author 2 took advantage of the naivety of Author 1 and told them that if they wanted their help, the manuscript should be registered in the institution to which Author 2 belonged. Author 2 registered the work, presented it as their own in a congress, obtained research funds for a program with their students and relegated Author 1 to a collaborator. Author 1 stated that no research was carried out at Author 2’s institution, and that the only work done on the paper was text correction every other week. Author 1 stopped collaborating with Author 2 before the submission of the coauthored article, when Author 2 insisted on including three of their own students as coauthors, as well as appearing as corresponding author. Author 1 assured that they had never received scholarship or remuneration of any kind from Author 2’s institution and submitted documents to show previous work under their own name and that of another author (Author 4), certificates of awards for the research on their behalf and Author 4; photographs of themselves presenting their work at different congresses; and correspondence with colleagues about the research.
The journal wrote to Author 2 notifying them that article 1, which had already been reviewed and accepted, would be included in the summaries of the journal in its current form and content, unless they sent in within 48 hours a duly justified and documented request not to publish it
Questions for COPE Council
- Is there anything else the journal should do? As Author 1 and Author 2 belong to two different institutions, it will not be easy to go to the institution to resolve the conflict.
- Should the journal refuse the publication of this article in an issue (it is already published ahead of print)?
- Should the journal add an expression of concern to the ahead of print article?
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.
At the very least, Author 1 should clarify the role of Author 4 and publish a correction if needed (either as a coauthor or acknowledgement in article 1). When and where the data were collected needs to be clarified, because there seems to be a study done/initially submitted elsewhere prior to the submission of the coauthored article, and then it is claimed that ethical approval was given to Author 2 at a later date, at a different institution. So the date and provenance of the data in article 1 and which ethics board approved the study should be checked/clarified in article 1. If the study is a prospective trial, online registration records could be consulted. Copies of ethical approvals for article 1 could be asked for.
An important issue is to evaluate the intellectual input of Author 2 and therefore if they are entitled to authorship. If Author 1 received other help (eg, alleged writing help only from Author 2), that can be stated in the acknowledgements of article 1. Based on the discussion of the authors, there seems to be little contribution from Author 2 other than having their name on the proposal. To confirm this would probably require a cooperative board of inquiry from the two institutions to sort out.
If the journal is satisfied with the complete and transparent reporting in article 1, it could go ahead with the early online version, and the second batch of authors can lodge a complaint about the early online article 1, with evidence. The accepted paper seems to be publishable based on the journal’s procedures. An expression of concern is probably not necessary, but the journal could give Author 2 an opportunity to reply. There is a danger of disenfranchising the first author and his properly reviewed paper. The lack of responsiveness of the second author is troubling given their claim of intellectual ownership.
The journal should check its own procedures about obtaining signed author declarations on authorship/contributions at the submission stage, and decide on and clearly publicise their authorship criteria, such as ICMJE. Good practice is to copy all authors when corresponding about the manuscript. It is a procedure that can prevent many problems.