Every so often a journal may get not one, but a series of complaints from the same source. These complaints may be directed at an author, an editor, or the journal in general. If these complaints turn out to be well founded, obviously there is a serious problem with the publication. However, we are aware of cases where a complainant continuously comes up with cases that turn out to be baseless. Some complaints deal with matters outside the remit of the journal: for example, in one case an editor was accused of blocking a promotion; in another case, several journals received weekly (plagiarism) allegations against papers published by an editor-in-chief apparently because the complainant was not content with the outcome of an earlier unrelated investigation conducted by the editor-in-chief.
Other complaints are about publications. We have seen one complaint that alleges plagiarism, but evidence presented consisted only of common English phrases like “…has been proven to”, “In previous research, we observed that…”. There are also authors that insist repeatedly on a journal publishing comments to earlier comments, and do not accept that a certain topic has been closed.
In other cases, complainants accuse articles with similar titles of plagiarism whereas the content turns out to be entirely different. Finally, we receive complaints from researchers who insist that their work should have been cited, “as it is so important”.
When the above happens on an incidental basis, editors can deal with such cases by following the standard procedure. However, how should they act when the complaints do not stop, get personal, and start humming around the community?
Questions
- How prevalent is this situation?
- What are legitimate options to deal with such cases?
- Should one escalate to higher authorities (lawyers, employing institutes)?
- How to repair any reputational damage incurred by unfounded accusations?
- Is there any way to prevent such cases (for example, through stated policy)?
- Should editors react to messages posted on blogs and forums?
- What is the role of publishers to investigate journals who receive such issues?
Comments
I am aware of one incident where an author approached the (female) office staff at a conference. He was unhappy with the recent rejection of his paper and accused the editor of racism. He actually threatened physical violence. Fortunately the editor wasn't present and the staff calmed him down, but the author subsequently started to contact the office staff in inappropriate ways (e.g. sending over-familiar emails and personal invitations). We wrote to ask him to stop. When another email arrived, announcing his intention to visit the office, the editor wrote to his institution to explain that this behaviour was unprofessional and requesting an investigation. The institution wrote back, almost by return, to say that they were taking action. We never found out what that action was, and we did not hear from the author again.
to post comments
First, it’s worth stating that I don’t want to suggest ideas that would impede legitimate complainants from making complaints, or whistle-blowers from blowing their whistles. In fact quite the opposite: I’d like to help them ensure that their legitimate concerns are heard and acted upon. A practical suggestion would be for journals and publishers to make it clear how best to structure and submit a legitimate complaint. A checklist to submit to journals or publishers along with complaints might help. A checklist like this would be most useful if it was written by an independent body, like COPE.
With that said, I think serial complainants with untrue and misleading comments undermine their own credibility. As do those with poorly researched and poorly substantiated complaints or a personal agenda. I think the more frequently that serial complainants submit equally poor complaints, the less impact they are likely to have. They cry wolf [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Wolf].
I think serial complainants with untrue or misleading comments also make it harder for legitimate whistle-blowers. I think they make it harder for the people listening to and acting upon complaints to give attention to serious and legitimate issues, either by using up their limited time, or by creating confusing noise from amongst which it is harder to listen for and to hear legitimate complaints.
I’d suggest that serial complainants with poorly researched and poorly substantiated comments do more harm than good. Even those who have the best intentions, who have a mission to raise awareness around an important issue, or who have the aim of teaching ‘best practice’ by illustrating its opposite.
For these reasons I’d argue that it’s entirely legitimate to opt not to respond to poorly researched and poorly substantiated complaints, including (and perhaps especially) those from serial complainants.
But I’d also argue that opting not to respond to this kind of complainant is not the same as ignoring their comments. The comments themselves may need action, whether or not the complainant is sent a reply. I think listening to and understanding comments can give clues for journals and publishers who wish to build and maintain a good reputation.
[The thoughts I have written above are my own. I am Treasurer of COPE, and I am employed by Wiley].
to post comments
I would heartily support the idea of an independent body, such as COPE, dealing with persistent and groundless complainers. Maybe as Chris Graf suggests, a publicly-available checklist of actions and points (which can be shared with the complainer) would be a good start.
A more final and official solution maybe to discuss the case at COPE forum and make the findings and comments publicly available again (maybe even including names if it get this far). From that point on, not replying to emails is an option. Harder to ignore phone calls and personal visits though. However if we could point to some kind of official ruling on the subject, then our actions are somewhat legitimised.
When it comes to phone calls, text messages, social media intrusion and personal visits, then it can overstep the mark quite rapidly. It may be an idea to have a staff/editor charter on the website, saying that we protect the safety and independence of our staff and editors and anyone who threatens staff or external editors in any way, will have their details passed on to their institution and in extreme cases, the police. Refer to this wording at the first hint of something escalating and hopefully it will cool down the situation.
A similar policy on persistent complainants could state that legitimate concerns will be shared with COPE, but several complaints which are over-stated, wrong, or petty will result in a break of communication with the complainant?
to post comments