A journal published an article discussing alleged partnerships between a well-known soft drinks brand and a number of health organisations in one particular country. The article was fully peer-reviewed prior to acceptance and now sits online in the journal’s advance access section of the website. A month after it appeared online, the Editor-in-Chief started to receive several written calls for the paper to be retracted. These communications, sent by several nutrition bodies identified in the published paper, felt that the methodology used in the paper was ‘weak and inaccurate’, ‘not scientifically sound’ and intended to cause ‘damage to the reputations’ of people connected to the organisations mentioned. The journal proposed that the complainants voice their concerns through a submitted Letter to the Editor and/or via the journal’s online commenting tool which allows comments to be posted with regards to individual papers.
After this, several such communications and longer letters were sent which discussed the alleged flaws in the paper and repeated the calls for a retraction. The authors of the paper were invited to reply to the longer letter of the complainants and they too submitted a long letter defending their work. In light of the repeated calls to withdraw the paper, the Editor-in-Chief and publisher decided that a second, post-publication, review of the paper could be beneficial. This was coordinated by the Editor-in-Chief and two further appraisals of the paper were obtained by two esteemed experts in the field of public health. While both new reviews identified weaknesses in the original paper and highlighted ways in which it could have been better and perhaps less contentious, neither felt that there were sufficient grounds for retraction.
Following discussion with legal representatives at the publisher, it was agreed that the Editor-in-Chief would state that a further review had happened and reiterate the journal’s position of offering a formal exchange of Letters to the Editor (but not a retraction of the paper). The publisher is now awaiting further communication from the lawyer representing several of the offended organisations with whom the Editor-in-Chief has been corresponding. However, the journal is uncertain whether they should now proceed to publish the many comments and letters which have been sent to the Editor-in-Chief regarding this paper, or wait until an agreement has been reached on how the matter will be resolved. These comments and letters are separate from any formal exchange of Letters to the Editor which may be submitted if both parties eventually agree to this form of resolution. Most such comments would be published as online-only comments with the paper rather than in an issue of the journal itself, although at least one has been submitted as a full letter via the journal’s manuscript submission and tracking system.
Questions for COPE Council
- Would COPE encourage the journal to publish the comments and letters received to date?
- Or should the journal continue to hold them until a resolution has been reached about the article itself?
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.
It seems that the journal has done all that can reasonably be expected, and indeed has gone above and beyond the call of fiduciary duty.
There seem to be two issues: academic soundness of the study and any legal implications. The editor seems satisfied with the post-publication peer reviews. They may wish to determine if any unaddressed limitations identified by the post-publication peer reviews are serious enough for a correction. However, as lawyers have become involved, it would be best to seek their advice, especially if there is a possible case of libel. The legal side may need to run its course first.
In the interest of transparency and given the controversy, it makes sense to publish the additional reviews and letters, as long as they are part of the scientific debate. The publication policy at the journal will determine how the letters are published. As one piece of correspondence has become formalised as a letter, if this is from the complaining side, the authors should have the right of reply. An editorial note could eventually be added for transparency.