A journal owned by publisher A recently posted an article critical of publisher B. Both publishers A and B are COPE members. Publisher B has already responded with several claims about the author’s methodology. Publisher A would normally defer to the journal’s editors. However, because the content of the article relates to the publishing industry, publisher A has particular insights into the topic and is qualified to conduct its own expert analysis into the research methodology used – knowledge it otherwise may not have and analysis it otherwise may not do.
Questions for COPE Council
- Given the subject matter, is it fair and appropriate for publisher A to evaluate this research differently than it would typically handle other ethics cases?
- If publisher A can use these insights, are there any limitations on the ways they could be applied? If, for example, publisher A ultimately shares publisher B's concerns but the editors defend the methodology, could publisher A potentially proceed with a correction or retraction?
Given the publisher’s expertise in this area it would be appropriate to call on them in a reviewer or consultant capacity, perhaps producing a recommendation to the journal. Ideally more than one member of staff would be asked to do this evaluation, while at least one staff member did not participate, and attempted to remain neutral for consultation with the Editors, if needed. All representatives of the publisher would need to be very clear in declaring any conflicts of interest, either actual or perceived. A further stage in the interests of fairness could be to pass the matter to an independent third party who could call upon the experts at Publisher A (as well, potentially, as other publisher experts) for whatever information they needed to conduct the analysis of the methodology. This would be a similar course to that taken if an editor submits an article to their own journal.
The final decision on any actions, however, should be left to the editor and they should not receive any pressure from the publisher to act on their recommendations. After all, an article could still be worth publishing even if it is critical, and just because an article is published does not mean that it is right. If the editors determined that a Correction or Retraction was necessary based on the Publisher's expert evaluation, that would fall to their editorial discretion.
The publisher representatives might choose to submit a Letter or a counter article either to this journal or another, in which case the editors could treat it as a regular submission (with all conflicts of interest made clear).
If the situation is more complex, or if it is deemed impossible to investigate without conflicts of interest playing a part, then the publisher could consider referring it to COPE’s Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee.