A journal recently received an 11 page letter via email titled ‘request for a retraction’ from a pharmaceutical company (PC). They have issues with one of our critically appraised topic(s) which critically appraises two papers that were funded by PC and written by employees at PC. The two papers were published in separate journals.
Our critically appraised topic (CAT) was peer reviewed by 5 reviewers. After two rounds of review 4 recommended acceptance, 1 rejection. The Associate Editor recommended accept, and the Editor in Chief accepted the article.
PC claim our author has misinterpreted the two studies. They provide rebuttals to some of our author’s statements using new evidence that is not published in their articles – they say this information was omitted because of word count limitations at the journals they published with.
They also say their authors were never contacted by our author for clarification.
We believe that while some points raised, at first glance, warrant a correction, they are not a reason for a retraction.
After coming across COPE advice in a similar case we have sent a letter to the author to respond to. The Editor in Chief will then look over the response to determine whether there are errors and/or if there is just a difference of opinion.
If the latter is the case, the Editor may suggest the PC submit a formal ‘Letter to the Editor’ on the CAT, which would go through our normal peer review process. The author would then also be given the chance to submit a response, which would also be peer reviewed. We may then publish the letter and response.
Questions for the Forum
- For a critically appraised topic the author can only appraise the information that is in the published papers, is this a correct and fair statement?
- Is a failure to contact the authors of the PC papers a fair reason for a rebuttal?
- How should the journal handle the fact that PC claims there is new evidence not available in the published papers? And, if it comes to it, can/should the journal publish new evidence in the Letter to the Editor?
- How informed should the journal keep the pharmaceutical company?
- The initial letter is 11 pages long, can COPE provide any further guidance on Letters to the Editor, re: length and content - what to and what not to include? How many letters and responses should be allowed? Are these editorial decisions?
The Forum praised the journal for following previous COPE advice in contacting the author with a view to encouraging an exchange of peer-reviewed letters. The case was felt to be straightforward to deal with from here on, and the journal should aim to ensure that all the information is available to readers rather than request the retraction of an article which contains a correct assessment of the information available.
Authors should not be expected to contact the authors of a work which they are critiquing, or to make allowance for data which have not been published. One option, if the journal offers it, would have been for the pharmaceutical company to provide extra work as supplementary material. This would have removed the whole issue. However, this could now be provided as part of the post-publication process, for example in the form of a letter to the editor. Certainly the pharmaceutical company should ensure that their publications are formally corrected, and the journal could contact the relevant publishers to ensure that they are aware of this. It is certainly good practice to invite the authors of a critiqued article to respond, although it is not a requirement, and some journals make this a regular practice but without allowing either side to block the publication of the other’s response. Some journals also publish correspondence articles which could be used to reach an overall conclusion.
The length of a letter to the editor will depend on the journal’s policies and how such letters are structured. Certainly 11 pages seems long, but it is often possible to edit letters heavily without removing the important points. The pharmaceutical company can always publish a fuller version on their own blog or website and link to it in the letter.
The presenter asked the Forum how to handle the possibility that the author feels pressured to agree to a retraction. The author has reported being visited on social media by the pharmaceutical company. Given this, it would be wise to refer them to their own institution’s authorities for advice and support. The journal can also reassure the author that they are following COPE’s retraction guidelines and that they will not be pushed to agree to a retraction because of pressure from the pharmaceutical company.
As per the Journal’s policy, the post-publication critique was sent to the author for their input. Subsequently, both the post-publication critique and the author's response underwent independent peer-review. Following this, all three components were evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief in line with the guidance provided by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
The journal considered the seriousness and the impact of the errors raised, and the ethical implications involved. Considering the objections along with the author’s rebuttal and the reviewer’s comments, the Journal decided that the errors in the paper do not rise to a level that necessitated retraction.
The Journal decided that the best course of action is to publish an Erratum and correct the published version where there has been minor factual error or where phraseology has the potential to mislead readers. The single Erratum will provide clarity, and detail the corrections to the paper while addressing unintentional mistakes.
The Journal also invited the Pharmaceutical company to submit a formal ‘Letter to the Editor’ critiquing the paper with the opportunity to introduce new data.
As of now, the Journal has not received any response from the pharmaceutical company.