A journal published a paper. Some months later, the author asked if they could change the contents of the paper. The Editor in Chief had some concerns with respect to some of the results and could not come to an agreement with the author. The author then requested withdrawal of this paper and asked that it be removed from the database. The author also accused the journal of being unethical.
The journal suspected the author might be considering submitting the paper to another journal.
The journal decided to publish a retraction and added a watermark on the original paper.
The retraction drafted by the Editor in Chief stated that following a request by the author to change the contents of the paper, the editor had had concerns about some of the results reported which communication with the author had not been able to resolve. As the concerns remained, the Editor in Chief had retracted the paper.
Question for COPE Council
- Is this an appropriate solution?
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.
An Expression of Concern may be more appropriate in this case. A key element will be how much confidence the editor has in the results section and what the issues here are. If the author spotted a mistake and wanted to make a correction but the editor considered the mistake to be so major as to warrant a retraction instead, the editor was right to retract and not allow complete removal from the database (which the author requested), but to issue a watermark plus retraction notice instead.
However, if the editor found something irregular in that section of the results or another section, then according to the COPE flowchart (eg, suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript) an unsatisfactory answer from the author should lead to involvement of the institution, and possibly retraction or expression of concern, depending on the outcome. The institution can be informed in neutral terms (and the author informed that this will be the next step).
If the editor found evidence of photographic image manipulation, then the relevant COPE flowchart (Image manipulation in a published article) suggests asking the institution to investigate. If the editor suspects misconduct, the institution should be informed.