- Case
Post-publication evaluation and manufacturer information
The committee agreed that it was best to find out the exact involvement of the author with the company and with the development of the therapy. The author’s involvement should be transparent. If there is a conflict of interest, it might be worth discovering whether it is a personal/specific or non-personal/non-specific conflict. If the latter, a conflict of interest statement should be… - CaseOn-going
Concerns over the withdrawal of a complaint
The journal received multiple complaints from two ‘whistleblowers’ in country A regarding the methodology presented in an article published in 2021. The Editors began an investigation into the paper, using evidence provided by the whistleblowers. The Editors felt that based on the provided evidence, an investigation should be carried out. The authors, who were also from country A, were made… - Discussion documents
Preprints
…quickly and widely, under open access licenses, usually at no cost to authors. The preprint landscape is evolving rapidly and extensively across a wide range of subject areas, and is likely to remain a permanent fixture of the publishing cycle. Preprints offer a wide range of benefits to authors, researchers, publishers, and the public. There are challenges and concerns to… - Case
Palestinian refugee conditions
A journal received a simple, cross-sectional survey of Palestinian refugees. The author was a Palestinian, employed by a charity and undertaking research based at a university overseas. The study contained new data and within the constraints of a cross-sectional survey seemed methodologically sound. The paper was sent to two peer reviewers with expertise in the area, experience in… - CaseCase Closed
Managing an editor’s undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article
…round of peer review with an unbiased handling editor would be appropriate to uphold the integrity of the journal’s review process and to ensure transparency around possible conflicts of interest. This plan was communicated to the authors. The authors responded stating that they were concerned that given the nature of the controversy, and the post-publication debate, that another round of peer review… - CaseCase Closed
Dispute arising from peer review of a rejected comment and published correction
In 2016, group A published manuscript X in our journal. In early 2017, group B submitted a comment critical of the published manuscript. Following peer review, in accordance with the journal’s then active policy, the comment was rejected from further consideration. The policy allowed for the author of the original article to be one of the peer reviewers of the comment. The lead author… - Case
Possible deception because of omission of important information
…process Y but that this had been disguised by the way in which the drug had been taken. This was not described in the major papers, but has now been reviewed in a comparatively minor study. The editor had tentatively agreed with the critic to consider publishing a paper that discussed the mechanism, but it had been difficult to find out information on the trial protocol. - Could the authors have… - Case
Dubious surgery
…in an experiment. The paper came from overseas. The editor wrote to the author asking him to advise whether he obtained ethics committee approval and whether the women had consented on both counts. Is this the right approach? Should this case be pursued if no answers are forthcoming?… - Case
Publication bias arising from an editor’s activities
The committee’s attention has been drawn to alleged publication bias in Journal X. It is alleged that an editor on X had invited a young trainee in radiology to author some 14 commentaries over the past 5 years. His most recent commentary draws attention to one important study from France but otherwise covers the same territory as his previous commentaries without mention of relevant… - CaseCase Closed
Pre-publication in a discussion paper series
A submission in the economics field to an interdisciplinary social science journal was accepted, following full external review. Subsequently, the publisher wrote to the author stating that during editorial checks, it had come to their attention that a full manuscript of a paper with the same name was available in a discussion paper series and kindly asked that this version be removed from the… - CaseCase Closed
Post-publication correction because of lack of consent
An article that has been published in our journal has subsequently been found to have serious ethical issues. The authors did not seek the correct ethics approval from their institution before conducting the research (which involves human subjects). They also did not obtain informed consent from the research participants prior to publication. The article in question is a case study of… - CaseCase Closed
Retraction because of scientific misconduct even if the conclusions are sound?
A journal was alerted to potential image manipulation in four papers published over the course of twelve years by the same corresponding author. The journal contacted the corresponding author who provided some raw data for some of the papers but not all of them, and was not able to explain the apparent manipulation (which included, in one paper, a duplicate image from a paper published in… - CaseCase Closed
Plagiarism and copyright of material without permission
The presenters found an e-book where all of the 'chapters' comprised articles from different issues and volumes of their journal. These were used without the journal’s permission or any form of approval. The journal’s co-publisher neither gave permission nor was contacted. Also, no one contacted the authors of the articles involved for permission. The journal is open access with… - Case
Is it unethical to reject unregistered (or late-registered) trials?
…non-compliance. For these studies, we have informed the authors of our policy and advised them they can retrospectively register, for free, at clinicaltrials.gov, where they are also able to deposit results (should they be unable to secure journal publication). We are now also considering removing the ‘grandfather’ clause for old trials (pre-2005) (ie, that we would be unable to consider these for… - Guidelines
Retraction guidelines
…manipulated peer review process The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers. Notices of retraction should: Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online… - Discussion documents
Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making
…reviewers, and authors. The adoption of AI raises key ethical issues around accountability, responsibility, and transparency. The guidance provides recommendations, highlighting issues of significant interest to publishers, editors, and authors in light of current technologies, and adds some insights towards future developments along with suggested reading materials. - Case
Repeated alleged plagiarism in case reports
Our journal has recently been the subject of an attack of attempted plagiarism by an author from a military hospital in another country. The first evidence of this was alerted to us by one of our reviewers who identified an almost word-for-word copy of a paper previously published in which the disease being treated was changed slightly and a few numbers but everything else, including the… - Case
Lack of patient consent for a case report, patient confidentiality
…consent was not sought from the child’s legal guardians as the child was placed with the social services and lost to follow-up. The authors believe the case report should be published to raises awareness among clinicians about potential symptoms of non-accidental injury in children, even though they cannot provide consent from the child or the child’s guardians to publish. The editorial staff… - CaseOn-going
Is this previous publication?
A manuscript was submitted to our journal and, on running a routine CrossCheck report, we found that it contained a 68% match (over 5000 words) to a report from a funded project by the authors that had recently been published online. Because the similarity match was so high, we rejected the manuscript. The author is now contesting the rejection, arguing that the funded project had… - CaseCase Closed
Authorship order in dual publications
…publish one article with two sets of author orders simultaneously in two different journals? Are there any potential issues with referencing? …