You are here

Home Resources Forum discussion topics

Author behavioural misconduct

December 2022

Increasingly, journals and publishers are being notified or even asked to act when authors – or others involved in the publication process – are accused or convicted of crimes or various forms of “behavioural misconduct,” such as abuse or harassment. For the purposes of this discussion, “behavioural misconduct” is defined as harmful or criminal actions by authors or others that do not primarily concern the integrity of the research itself, but which may nevertheless impact the research and publication processes, or the perceptions of the integrity of the individual and their works.

Some (e.g. Marin-Spitotta )1 2 have therefore argued that “behavioural misconduct” should be considered a form of research misconduct. Resnik (2019) 3 argued that sexual harassment meets three of four legally enforceable ethical standards for the conduct of research, and some scholarly societies, journals, and institutions have already implemented 4, or are keen to implement, a research misconduct definition that includes sexual harassment in particular, but possibly other forms of behavioural misconduct, as well.

Even if it became widely accepted that sexual harassment (and/or other forms of “behavioural misconduct”) is a form of research misconduct, it is unclear if, when, or how this sort of “research misconduct” would intersect with publications or publication ethics. Additionally, publishers and editors are often contacted with allegations about a wide range of other types of behaviour or crimes, including domestic abuse, child abuse, murder, fraud, terrorism, and hate speech. These communications may require a reply of some kind, and, in many cases, the allegations are impacting the publication process in some way. For example:

  • Authors asking to be removed from published articles in response to alleged behavioural misconduct by a co-author.
  • Reviewers refusing to handle papers authored by individuals on the basis of that author’s alleged behaviour or perceived character.
  • Readers calling for retraction notices or other forms of denouncement to be applied to works authored by individuals accused of behavioural misconduct.
  • Institutions, societies, publishers, or journals considering bans on or other sanctions against individuals accused of such behaviour, often arising out of a desire to protect their communities, reputations, or employees. 
  • Authors refusing to cite or acknowledge research conducted by individuals on the basis of their alleged behaviour, opinions,  or perceived character.

So how should publishers and editors respond? Existing COPE guidance rarely covers these scenarios, yet they are increasingly expected to respond, often rapidly and publicly. Accordingly, a COPE working group has been formed to identify the publication ethics issues, if any, posed by these issues and to consider potential steps journals and publishers could take when alerted to such cases. The working group recently surveyed COPE members to gather perspectives and experiences around these issues and are now working on a discussion document. This Forum discussion will feature headline results from the survey alongside some example cases, as well as the discussion questions below.

Back to top

Introduction to the Forum

View the introductory slides to the topic "Author behavioural misconduct" with COPE Council Member, Jennifer Wright. 

Questions for the Forum discussion

  • Should “behavioural misconduct” be considered a form of research misconduct? If so, what responsibility (if any) might editors and publishers have to investigate, and what evidence might be required to act? If not, who should investigate, and how might editors and publishers interact with this process (if at all)?
  • Should these issues be considered manifestations of existing publication ethics frameworks and treated as such? For example, a co-author seeking removal from an article would be treated as an authorship dispute and handled accordingly. A reviewer refusing to review would be deemed to have a COI/should decline the review given an objective review is unlikely?
  • Is it relevant whether or not there is a topical link to the content? If so, how, and on what basis, might such a link be confirmed or denied?

References

Back to top

Comments from the COPE Forum, December 2022

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

  • Author behavioural misconduct can cover a very broad spectrum of issues which range beyond the research environment (for example, criminal behaviour), and within it (sexual harassment, racism in the research setting, and so on). The latter can particularly affect the integrity of the published literature as it could entail silencing voices, affecting research quality, and skewing who gets credit.
  • Caution must be used in determining what is deemed as behavioural misconduct, for example, where practices are illegal in some countries but accepted in others. Even a criminal conviction in one setting may not be indicative of behaviour which is thought of as misconduct elsewhere, for example concerning homosexuality or abortion.
  • The decision to publish should generally be based on quality of the research, but publishers and journals may feel that the potential reputational or safety impacts of behavioural misconduct cannot simply be ignored. On the other hand they should be careful about agreeing their own remit, especially where their approach has previously been based on processes and not about investigation or apportioning blame. Carrying out further investigations will also bring substantial workload, especially for editorial boards who are working in a voluntary capacity.
  • Some collaborations have a constitution or member agreement that specifies acceptable/unacceptable conduct. Editors will need to decide how these are weighed against their own policies about crediting everyone who did work on the study.
  • The remit of behavioural misconduct may encompass editorial board members and reviewers as well, though for now COPE is focusing on authors/researchers. This is partly because editorial staff often have a different and pre-existing contractual relationship in place whereas authors may have engaged in behavioural misconduct prior to the relationship with the publisher.
  • Considerations of behavioural misconduct can affect peer review decisions. COPE’s guidance on editing peer reviews may be useful here, particularly in its suggestion that publishers and editors should not censor reviews, and edits, if any, should be transparent and done with agreement by the reviewer. Alternatively, the editor could add their own comments to the author contextualising the reviewer’s response if that was felt necessary.
  • Transparency to readers around allegations of behavioural misconduct would be challenging and likely unwise for editors and publishers to publish in connection to an article, particularly if the behaviour falls outside the immediate research context. There could be unwarranted risks to individuals’ reputation or safety as a consequence, and it is likely the publisher/editor would only have access to very limited information about the facts of the situation. There are many commenting platforms and web annotation tools available – these may be better options for complainants or authors who wish to share such information.
  • Some questions will be better directed to authors’ institution to adjudicate especially if they concern research processes or behaviour in the workplace.
  • Society journals may have extra considerations where they have their own codes of conduct; on the other hand they may be well-placed to offer support to authors who are members. Some societies have provided additional support or tried alternative approaches for authors experiencing these issues (e.g. the author harrassment webinar session with Randy Townsend from The American Geophysical Union).
  • Publishers and editors may have to think about how and how far to offer support to authors who are in a vulnerable position as a consequence of behavioural misconduct. There may be complicating issues to do with articulacy, power, connectedness and language which move attention away from need to the ability of an individual to be persuasive. Publishers and journals may want to consider how their handling of allegations intersects with equality and inclusivity issues.
  • COPE guidance will be valuable in supporting editors and editorial staff to manage these issues confidently.

Back to top

Related resources