You are here

2010

Case

Submissions from members of the editorial board

10-33

You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right

Our journal has decided that members of the editorial board are allowed to submit manuscripts which will undergo peer-review directed by the present or former editor-in-chief. It can be difficult, and I would like to present one example.

Case

Author misconduct

10-32

You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right

Case

Authorship order dispute

10-35

You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right

A manuscript has been accepted for publication in our journal and we would like to publish in the March 2011 issue. The corresponding author (Dr F) is trying to collect copyright forms from all of the authors of the paper to send back to us, but one author will not sign the copyright form due to a disagreement about authorship order.

Case

Nuisance author

10-31

You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right

An author submitted a paper which went through the review process and was rejected. He is now sending abusive emails to me, the editor, and spamming an enormous number of people in his research area and the government (he even tried to contact the royal office) as a protest. He continues to submit his paper (over 20 times so far), changing his author name.

Case

Breach of peer review confidentiality

10-25

This case concerns a submitted review article that proposes a new theory in a field of research where there are two polarised positions.

Case

No ethics committee approval of a study

10-28

Our journal received a manuscript describing a comparison of two different techniques for patients in the intensive care unit. There was no information on ethics committee approval and so we asked the authors if approval was obtained. They replied that they had not applied for ethics committee approval “as it was a clinical comparison of two existing methods, none of them experimental.

Case

Falsified references

10-29

An article was submitted to my journal and was sent for peer review. An editorial board member realised that a number of the references were incorrect: publication dates had been changed to make them more current.

Case

Claim from an author that his name should not have been included as author on a paper

10-30

Dr R submitted a paper to our journal and has since expressed unhappiness about the way in which our journal has dealt with the issue.

Case

Authorship dispute

10-27

Professor X claims that he should have been a coauthor on one of two peer reviewed publications and the senior author on the other. The situation is unusual in that Professor X is now retired and his name was omitted from coauthorship of both papers. Professor X argues that he should have been the senior author of the first manuscript since the funds to initiate the project were directly derived from a grant awarded to him.

Case

Lack of acknowledgement of contributor

10-23

Our case relates to a paper (by author’s A and B) that was retracted because of lack of acknowledgement of the contribution of another author (C). The retraction statement noted: “While the A/B paper is largely the work of A and B, it includes some sentences and ideas that previously appeared in an unpublished paper and/or Power Point presentation only with A and C listed as authors.

Pages