We have a paper in production that presents refutations of common criticisms made of a domestic cleaning or skin care ingredient. The majority of the authors are scientific research officers of a firm that sells products containing the ingredient. One other author is stated to be associated with a university but does not appear to hold a PhD. It is stated in the corrected proofs that this individual is a ‘scientific writer’, which was not disclosed when the paper was submitted. Author contribution information indicates that this person had no involvement in selecting or gathering the information presented in the review.
Whereas in the initial manuscript this author was stated to have contributed to the writing to the manuscript and jointly developed the structure and arguments, in the corrected proofs it is stated that this author only made critical revisions to it. This suggests that they do not meet the criteria to qualify as an author outlined by EMWA, which states that a writer must ‘have made a substantial contribution to the analysis or interpretation of the data and feel able to take public responsibility for their research. In practice this means that professional writers are unlikely to be named as authors on primary research articles. However they may qualify for authorship of review articles, for example if they have conducted an extensive literature search.’ We are also concerned that the institutional association may no longer be valid as information elsewhere indicates that the author is now employed elsewhere.
The authors have freely disclosed their competing interests and there is no evidence of possible unethical conduct in this respect, aside from the point noted above. The competing interest disclosures will be published in the paper. The paper was extensively peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the editor in chief. There is no reason to believe that the editor in chief's decision was incorrect in this respect.
The key concern is that the paper contains incorrect authorship information which has been manipulated to enhance its prospects of being published. Also, it is too commercial in its content, and despite authors disclosing their conflicting interests the paper may be harmful to the journal's reputation if published.
Normally papers like this are rejected prior to peer review commencing and in this case it was decided at the time that on balance it should be allowed to proceed to peer review. This decision was made by the editor in chief after the matter being raised by the publisher. We would prefer to refund the authors' APF than risk the prospect of harming the journal's reputation.
Questions for COPE Council
- Does the questionable authorship information, and the fact that it appears to have been changed following submission, justify investigation or withdrawal of the paper now prior to publication?
- Is there a process recommended to be followed for this purpose?
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.
Council would suggest looking at the new GPP3 guidelines which offer expanded guidance on authorship criteria, particularly in relation to paid medical writers.
The affiliation of the authors at the time the work was carried out should be the affiliation stated in the byline. All that is required is that the affiliation of the writer-author was correct at the time of submission. There doesn’t seem to have been any questionable changes to authorship. But the editor could perhaps ensure that one or more of the authors should be acknowledged rather than given full authorship as per the guidelines highlighted above.
Council agree that the editorial process seems to have been conducted fairly and ethically, and don't see a reason to override the peer review process. The editor should have editorial independence to make this decision. It is not that unusual to see changes in authorship on this type of paper, particularly if the editor has challenged the authors about the scope of their contributions.
Also, the conflict of interest statements need to be clear.
Regarding advice on whether ‘... it is too commercial in its content, and ... the paper may be harmful to the journal's reputation if published’. This is a policy decision that only the journal can make, and there are no ethical issues so long as any potential conflicts of interest are declared, the review process has been fair and free from commercial (and other extraneous) considerations and the same rules apply to all. If an editor is concerned about this type of commercial article damaging the reputation of the journal, then they should have a clear editorial policy on it. For example, Lancet journals avoid publishing review-type articles (for which there is more scope for bias than for original research) from authors ‘who, within the past 3 years, and with a relevant company or competitor, has stocks, equity, a contract of employment, or a named position on a company board.’ If there is no such policy, then there don't seem to be any grounds for rescinding the decision to publish.