A journal with an open peer review process (names and reports published alongside articles) accepted an article after assessment by three peer reviewers. Two reviewers were positive and the third reviewer raised some concerns about the methodology. A revised version of the manuscript was published alongside the three peer reviewer reports and the authors’ response
After publication, two whistleblowers contacted the editor separately raising concerns about undeclared competing interests of the two reviewers who gave positive reports, and one whistleblower also expressed concerns about the methodology. The editor agreed that the two reviewers had undeclared competing interests and undertook post-publication review by an independent expert in the field (after informing the authors of their intention to conduct post-publication peer review).
The independent expert raised similar concerns about the methodology to the whistleblower and the third reviewer. The editor was also concerned that consent to publish was not obtained for the images and individual patient details presented in the manuscript.
The authors were asked about consent to publish and provided a response, but they did not confirm that consent was obtained from the individuals involved to publish their images and individual clinical details. The editor felt that the methodological concerns raised by the whistleblowers and post-publication peer reviewer, together with lack of confirmation that consent to publish was obtained, were sufficient to undermine the scientific validity of the article and made the decision to retract the article.
The authors were informed of this decision together with the reasons behind it. The authors have challenged the editor’s decision to retract, claiming that the editor has not followed due process by giving them an opportunity to respond to the methodological concerns and that the editor has failed to adhere to their journals open peer review policy by refusing to reveal the identity of the independent expert post-publication peer reviewer.
The Editor intends to give the authors the opportunity to respond to all methodological concerns and the consent issue again. The editor will not reveal the identity of the independent expert because the independent expert has asked to remain anonymous. The article covers a controversial subject and it very unlikely that the editor will be able to obtain a peer reviewer willing to give their opinion openly. The whistleblower who raised concerns about the methodology has also declined to provide an ‘official’ open peer review report. When investigating potential retraction cases, the journal does not routinely share the identity of any external experts who might help with the investigation with the authors of the article to be retracted.
Questions for COPE Council
- Does COPE have any comments on the process followed in handling this case and the proposed course of action?
- Given the journal has an open peer review policy, the editor would welcome COPE’s view on their stance on maintaining the anonymity of the independent expert who provided post-publication peer review.
- Would it be expected to reveal this peer reviewer’s identity to the authors?
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.
There are three ethical issues here: informed consent for publication, reviewer conflict of interest and methodological concerns. The first and second are reasons for retraction. In research involving human subjects, there should be consent to undertake the study and, if the publication has the potential to identify individuals (eg, case studies), consent to publish. The journal should build these processes into the manuscript handling process, perhaps by means of a checklist, so that issues like the consent to publish are identified before acceptance.
The second ethical issue is the reviewers having undeclared conflicts of interest. While it is obvious that all reviewers must have no conflicts of interest, in small fields of research, where everyone knows everyone, it can be hard to find a truly unbiased, but knowledgeable, reviewer. The extent of the potential conflict needs to be assessed. How consequential were the conflicts of interest? Does the whistleblower have a conflict as well?
The issue of methodological problems may or may not be reason for retraction. It seems that there were grounds for suspicion, but not clear evidence of misconduct. Based on COPE's retraction guidelines an expression of concern may be more appropriate. 'Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if: they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors...' If the methodology is laid out clearly and accurately, then it is part of scholarly debate; retraction should not be a way of settling debate, whether on methodology or on the substantive issues.
In short, on the evidence presented, there may be grounds for retraction on the first two issues, but possibly not the third.
It seems reasonable to conceal the identity of an independent expert recruited to help adjudicate over a potential misconduct issue but the journal may wish to consider explicitly stating this in the information for authors. Clear guidelines are needed in the future as to whether this is also an extension of the open review system
How likely is it that the journal might attract further articles on controversial topics? If reasonably likely, is open peer review the most appropriate model for this journal?