Journal A published two studies from a group of authors from country X. The editor of journal A was contacted by journal B who had some concerns as they rejected a paper from the same group. The author did not respond well to the decision and repeatedly sent harassing emails to the editorial office of journal B. Journal B investigated the manuscript closely and found that:
- The address belonged to a residency in State X, country Y.
- The telephone number provided with the manuscript did not work.
- The senior author listed the institute address using three different cities and mistaking the abbreviations for two different states (suggesting they may not be familiar with the country they claimed to be based in).
- The address given is listed with a not-for-profit code in State X.
Journal A had another paper pending review and the editor rejected that article because of issues about the legitimacy of the institution and possibly the data. The editor thinks that the author may have created a non-profit organisation from which they conduct research (not a traditional academic institution, such as a university or health system).
Questions for COPE Council
- Is it a problem that the author is not from a traditional academic institution?
- Is there anything journal A should do?
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.
The fact that the paper was rejected from another journal is not an issue. It is normally not good form to pass on this information in an unsolicited manner to another editor. The fact that journal B 'rejected a paper from the same group' is not something that the editor should have shared, nor should that editor have shared that the author group 'sent harassing emails' about the earlier paper. COPE provides guidance on Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct. This states that 'sharing of information concerning a specific journal submission with individuals who are outside the journal’s review process is inimical to the principles of confidentiality...there is a concern that sharing of information among EICs regarding possible misconduct presents the risk of undue exposure, unwarranted rejection of papers, or other reputational harm to authors, particularly in cases where the suspicion may ultimately prove to be unfounded...Information shared should be restricted to factual content only, avoiding conjecture, supposition, or inference. It is recommended that the disclosing EIC include a statement that the information provided does not indicate a judgment of wrongdoing, but is merely intended to alert EiCs in case they have other information that might assist the handling of this case'.
However, if there is an issue of malfeasance (and not reacting 'well' is not malfeasance but falsifying information is) it would be acceptable for one editor to let another editor know about unethical conduct of that sort (but see the COPE guidance above).
The issue of the institutional affiliation is worrying but not all authors will have an affiliation. Retired researchers, for example, may have no affiliation and use their home address in their publications. A researcher’s institution may not always be an academic institution; there are agencies, commercial companies, non-profit organisations, etc, from whence research may originate. The editor may wish to query the corresponding author in a non-threatening, open-ended way, and clarify addresses, contributions and any conflicts of interest. Creating something that might be fictitious or be a shell charity could raise concerns, particularly if there is no way to verify the associated affiliation. But that in itself does not imply anything directly about the veracity of the study and this needs to be evaluated independently. The editor could seek clarity on this and ask for additional information that would ensure there is confidence in the veracity of the process used and the data collected. If the author fails to provide that information, the editor would be within their rights to reject the paper.