We are a scholarly publishing platform. We have recently encountered a unique case in which an author wishes to be removed from a published article due to allegations that have been made in the public domain about the lead and corresponding author.
The first version of the article in question was published in 2017, with subsequent versions. Since then, the lead author of the article was banned by their organisation and their participation in future events was disallowed. This was due to a violation of its code of conduct policies. Although full details about these policies are available online, the exact actions that led to this decision are unknown and disputed by the individual.
After this statement, we received an email querying how a coauthor can remove themselves as a coauthor on the article where the banned individual is the lead author. We responded promptly detailing our policies and procedures around removal of an author, explaining that, in line with COPE guidance for removal of an author after publication, the first step of the process would be to clarify the reason for the change in authorship. If the reason provided is deemed acceptable for change, all authors will have to agree to the change before publication of a revised version of the article, with a clear explanation of the change included at the top of the paper. We also explained that, in line with COPE guidelines and our own editorial policies, our editorial team cannot take responsibility for resolving disputes over authorship, and any disagreements among the authors must be settled by the authors’ institution(s). The coauthor responded to this email to provide details of the article in question and explained that they no longer wish to be associated with the manuscript or to be a part of that work based on the alleged behaviour of the lead author.
Up to now we have approached this issue in line with the policies and guidelines central to best practices in research publishing; however, although guidance is in place for how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct, there seems to no clear process or COPE flowchart for situations in which concerns have been raised about the alleged behaviour of an author.
In line with our publishing model, we feel there are two possible approaches. The first would be to not allow removal of the coauthor. Here we would communicate our decision to the coauthor, clearly explaining the steps we have taken to come to this decision and describing the reasoning alongside any relevant guidelines and policies. The second more complex approach would be to agree to remove the coauthor following confirmation that all authors agree to the change. However, transparency will be difficult here if the reasoning has to be communicated. It would also be necessary to discuss with the coauthor whether their name and contribution to the article should be included in the acknowledgements to maintain the integrity of the scientific record, and both the lead author and coauthor should be invited to provide a short response in the correction text.
Questions for COPE Council
- There may be some risk involved in extending ourselves beyond the clear-cut guidelines of academia, but could there also be a wider duty of ethical care to authors? Is this a reason to remove the co-author?
- All authors agree on submission that they have made a clear contribution to the published article and, alongside ICMJE criteria for authorship, select defined CRediT roles on the article submission form. On that basis would it be fair or right to remove an author who has otherwise made a clear contribution to the work?
- As a publisher supporting openness, it is important that we are prepared to be transparent with our rationale and reasoning, but in awareness of the delicate and sensitive nature of this case. Is there any additional guidance in this respect?
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.
COPE does not have guidelines or a flowchart for such situations because unprofessional behaviour that does not impact on the research itself is outside COPE's current remit. Neither the article nor the underlying science seems to be in question here, so this is not a matter of publication or research ethics.
However, COPE’s advice would be to discourage removing this person as a coauthor. While COPE recognizes that it may be embarrassing to be a coauthor of a paper where the lead author has been seen to act unprofessionally, COPE does not believe this personal discomfort outweighs the importance of identifying an accurate and complete list of authors. Perhaps the coauthor could write a letter to the editor, expressing their desire to be distanced from the author with the misconduct concerns. Wanting to disassociate oneself from a coauthor is not a valid reason for issuing a correction to the literature.
Moreover, if ICMJE authorship criteria are being used, the reason for removal of an author needs to be added; it must be an academic reason; and all authors would have to agree and sign off in this. A change at this stage would require a correction notice but the author byline would stay the same; the only option would be to say the status of the author has changed from authorship to acknowledgement, as the author participated substantially before.
If the paper has not finished the peer review process, the author byline itself might be correctable but the explanation would still need to be included. The same applies if the author says they do not approve of the ‘final’ version (if the paper is still being reviewed).
If the alleged misconduct affects the academic content of the paper or some aspect of the research process (for example, if knowledge of the other's misconduct has led the author to question the legitimacy of work performed on this paper), the author needs to explain that to the journal. The institution may need to be asked to investigate in this case. If the complaining author can prove that the behaviour affected the research reported and has the confirmation of the institution, then the case would escalate to one of research misconduct and possible retraction of that paper.
Update in 2023: COPE is currently working on guidance for cases of Author Behavioural Misconduct. See the Forum discussion for an introduction to the topic: