Coordinating multi-journal complaints

June 2021

When and how to involve multiple journals and publishers in dealing with complaints from whistleblowers

Complaints received from whistleblowers can develop into large investigations with multiple journals, editors, and publishers involved. Such complaints may involve many articles from a single author group or multiple author groups whose articles are linked by certain traits. Some journals or publishers may only have one or two papers involved but others may have tens of articles in question. Following best practice for investigating the allegations, the editor would approach the authors for an explanation for each article and review the authors’ responses to the issue in that article. Appropriate editorial action is then taken on that article, usually without reference to the broader concerns. 

As such complaints become more frequent, should editors continue the previous best practice to treat each case individually or in isolation? Taken in the context of just one or two papers, it could be an acceptable resolution to issue an erratum or correction for an error, but how much consideration should be given to the wider context of the concerns when looking at errors in individual papers? 

Current guidance on information sharing between editors states that sharing may be appropriate if more than one journal is thought to be involved. However, it is not clear how this information sharing could, or should, lead to coordinated action between editors.

Questions for discussion

• How much consideration should an editor give to the wider context of the complaint, outside of their own journal and/or publisher?

• At what point, if ever, in a large multi-publisher investigation should editors coordinate their actions? How could editors efficiently coordinate actions without slowing the correction of the scientific record unnecessarily?

• When issuing a post-publication notice, in what circumstances would it be appropriate to acknowledge broader concerns beyond the linked article?

• Journals, or publishers, with many affected articles can internally coordinate post-publication editorial action and could draw attention to broader concerns by self-reference. For journals with few affected articles, how can broader concerns or context be pointed to or acknowledged?

• Publishers are reporting that after an error is identified and corrected, another seemingly explainable error is then identified elsewhere in the same paper and the author requests that to be corrected as well. At what point should editors consider that the findings are unreliable and a retraction may be appropriate?

Back to top

Comments from the Forum, June 2021

NOTE, Comments do not imply formal COPE advice, or consensus.

• Often third parties or whistleblowers contact many publishers at the same time, which is helpful, because the publishers are all alerted to the issues. Usually, for individual cases, an editor will raise concerns about a paper with the authors initially and may then follow up with the institution. But in these larger investigations, it would be useful if the publisher with the most cases contacts the institution, along with the other publishers. Coordination at the early stage of an investigation could be very valuable. Therefore, a collective approach in contacting the institution would mean that the institution responds to all of the publishers in a coordinated way, and all parties have the same information.
• As a first step, perhaps editors and publishers could reach consensus regarding the fact that it is better to look at the broader context of a complaint, particularly from the perspective of the institution conducting the investigation.
• Although coordination and working together is a good idea, guidance from COPE that can be shared with editors and authors is needed. A systematic course of action that has been agreed by consensus would be useful.  
• How do smaller journals learn about these issues and what can they do? For smaller journals or journals with a few affected articles, systemic problems may not be as visible. How can smaller journals address the broader concerns? A flowchart would be helpful for editors. Discoverability for smaller journals is difficult. A knowledge base across the industry so journals know who to contact would also be helpful.
• Whistleblowers may raise issues with discrepancies in trials that have been conducted, for example, and a single journal might issue a correction. But when the wider context is looked at, more concerns may arise and an expression of concern or retraction might be more appropriate.
• Confidentiality of the review process must be considered. Is there a difference between published papers and those under review? If editors and publishers agree to act together, they must do so transparently and tell the authors that editors might share information. Journals need to have policies stating that in exceptional cases of suspected serious misconduct, pertinent information may have to be shared with other editors for the purposes of investigations.
• COPE has guidance on sharing of information between editors in cases of misconduct but further guidance is needed on how to achieve coordinated action between editors when multiple problems and cases from the same authors or same authors groups are occurring in multiple journals.
• Often an error is identified and corrected, and another seemingly explainable error is then identified elsewhere in the same paper and the author requests that it is also corrected. It is difficult for editors to decide when the findings in an article, or a series of articles, perhaps from the same author group, are no longer reliable.

Back to top

Related resources

• Dealing with concerns about the integrity of published research COPE discussion document

Your comments 

Anyone (members and non-members) can comment on this discussion.

Comments are reviewed and, on approval, added below.