- Case
Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute
…a publication. As the authors were unable to agree authorship among themselves, the journal contacted the institution where the research took place (also where author B is currently affiliated). Author A, and some of the other co-authors, have since left the institution. The institution discussed the case with the authors still at this institution, but stated they were not allowed to contact authors who had… - Case
Rescind a decision post-acceptance prior to publication
…dataset or research ethics are questionable because of a retraction elsewhere involving the same study, or there has been duplicate or salami publishing. If the authors did not declare that their other article was under investigation this would be a failure to disclose information that ‘would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers,’ which is… - Case
Complaint over protocol used in special issue
…obtaining further reviewers, or should an executive decision be taken by the publisher to protect against potentially scientifically unsound content? For Special Issues centred around a non-mainstream technique, to what extent should conflict-of-interest checks look into the research/clinical background of the reviewers and their past experience with the technique in question? … - Flowcharts
All Flowcharts
…When research institutions are contacted by journals new March 2024 Authorship and contributorship Changes… - Forum discussion topics
Bias in peer review
…reviewers. One of the challenges is that we do not have the data, but do we not therefore take action? It is clear that there are systemic issues around research and academic publishing that create barriers for people who come from historically marginalised groups. We need the data, and we need to know where we are now so that we know how we are improving, although obtaining the data is challenging. In… - Case
Undeclared competing interests
…general, what should be done about studies on drugs that are potentially lucrative? Should the authors declare if they “might” make money? - In this case, what does “not-for-profit” really mean? - And what does all this mean for researchers at universities that make money through spin-off companies?… - Case
Misrepresentation of journal decision on social media
…personally and claimed that the paper was rejected by reviewers. (The reviewers’ recommendations are not provided to authors.) The author also wrote a blog post on the blog site of their university research institute which linked to the personal website. The university blog itself did not name the journal and editor. All websites identified made reference to the paper being ‘rejected’, not ‘major… - Forum discussion topics
Peer review models
…A healthy and rigorous peer review process is critical to the accurate and honest communication of research. It is also a communal effort that brings together multiple stakeholders including authors, editors, publishers, and reviewers. Regardless of what form it takes — be it single-anonymised, double-anonymised, open, or community-driven — peer review is critical in establishing trust in scholarly… - Case
Problem with figures
(1) An article was published after peer review. Shortly after online publication we received a message from a reader (an academic who works in the same field as the authors) notifying us of a major concern with one of the figures in the article. “I am writing with regard of manuscript XXX recently published in XXX. These studies raise significant expectations in XXX patients, because the… - Case
Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
This case provoked a lot of discussion. The Forum had concerns that the researcher is being overly aggressive, and is behaving in a threatening way and holding the journal to ransom, possibly related to his past history with the journal. The advice was for the journal to take a tough stance and stand by its policies and procedures. The answer to the question “can an author request for… - Case
Unethical withdrawal of a paper
…ongoing research project and hopefully we will have some more interesting results to submit to your journal within the next few months. Thank you for the time spent on this paper and apologies for any inconvenience caused.” Editor A called Editor B and inquired about Author A’s paper. Editor B indicated that he was unaware that the paper was under review when he solicited it. Editor B stated that… - Case
Plagiarism, double submission and reviewer ethicality
…view—essentially that the paper did replicate ideas without proper acknowledgement. He was perhaps inclined to be lenient to a junior researcher and regard it as ‘unintentional plagiarism’ but left the decision to us of course. A3 replied, heavily defending their position both on the count of plagiarism and that of double submission. This response was reviewed by the Editors-in-Chief and the two editorial board… - Case
Handling self-admissions of fraud
…of the raw data to us. But the corresponding author and committee refused to share any useful information with us. The committee told us by email that they have an obligation to protect the corresponding author’s reputation. In May 2015, we spoke with the research integrity officials of the institute by telephone and they agreed to share more information with us. In early June 2015, we… - Case
Alleged unauthorized use of data and possible dual publication
…editorial office that the measurements published in one of the cited studies (of which the referee was the senior author) were not published in the form as they appear now in the database, and then accused the senior author of having used information which he collected as a member of the reviewer’s research group a long time ago, and publishing it without the reviewer’s permission. The reviewer thought… - Forum discussion topics
Editorial conflicts of interest
…about possible research, reporting, and publication biases, and their bearing on the published content. Conflicts of interest (COIs), or competing interests, are one more possible source of bias. A COI is defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as existing “when professional judgment concerning a primary interest…may be influenced by a secondary interest".[ Dealing with editor misconduct
…the journal and the quality of the material should be the decisive factors, not where a reference is published. A peer reviewer who is expert in the field should be able to advise the author on the relevant research, and not just what has been published in the journal. Peer reviewers should be required to look at the references and suggest ones that might have…- News
Case discussion: self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing
…must have mechanisms for correcting, revising or retracting articles after publication.” The scholarly community values originality, honesty, and transparency in the research record, and hence expects correct attribution of past work and valid claims of new work. An area of growing concern is ‘self-plagiarism’ of one’s past work to portray it as new (eg, unattributed paraphrasing, or… Facilitation and Integrity FAQ
…legal or institutional processes, the concern relates to an individual editorial decision (eg, a rejection decision by an editor), the concern relates to a member university or research institute. Back to top I submitted an…