Conflict of interest (reviewer)

The first author of a paper rejected by our journal publicly identified one of the four peer reviewers for the paper by name. She did this during a media interview conducted after the paper was published by another journal. The first author implied in that interview and subsequently on Twitter that the paper was rejected because of that person's review and also claimed the reviewer did not reveal relevant COIs.

This complaint received a great deal of attention because the rejected paper had a direct bearing on a very bitter medical/political matter, and its results were felt to bolster the case for one faction. The authors had not lodged a formal complaint with our journal about this matter. We usually do not comment on papers that we do not publish, so when contacted by the press about this accusation our initial response was to "neither confirm nor deny" that we had considered the paper. It soon became clear, however, that the reviewer was the subject of much unpleasant comment on social media and other vindictive behaviour. A colleague of the reviewer, for example, tweeted that he was "ashamed" to be a professor in the same institution as the reviewer. The reviewer also received two freedom of information requests asking for any correspondence with the journal and anybody else concerning the rejected paper.

What the journal did:
1. We immediately contacted the authors to let them know we were disappointed in their behaviour. The authors acknowledged their mistake and had already contacted the reviewer to apologise. The reviewer accepted the apology but expressed the hope that we would make his review public, saying "I am continuing to get emails from people who are assuming that I wrote negative reviews for the paper and raising questions about conflict of interest. I believe my reviews to have been supportive of publication and not to comment on whether the journal should accept or not. So from my point of view it would be helpful if you could publish my reviews regardless of whether the other reviewers agree to this..."
2. The other reviewers and the authors agreed that we could make this matter public, so we broke with precedent and published a blog. We received mostly positive comments on Twitter and in the comments section for the blog.
3. We have also amended our instructions for authors on the journal website to say "For rejected research papers, we expect that authors will keep the identity and comments of peer reviewers confidential. They may, however, share the peer review comments (although not peer reviewer names) in confidence with other journals. Authors should contact the editor who handled their paper if they have any complaints about the peer review process or the behaviour of the peer reviewers."
4. We have also amended our rejection letters to say "Although the journal has an open peer review process, in which authors know who the peer reviewers were, we expect that you will keep the identity and comments of the peer reviewers for this paper confidential. You may, however, share the peer review comments in confidence (although not the names of the peer reviewers) with other journals to which you submit the paper. If you have any complaints about the peer review process or the conduct of the peer reviewers, please contact the editor who handled your paper. Please do not contact the peer reviewers directly."
5. We continue to follow-up periodically with the reviewer to make sure he is not suffering any additional ill effects from this incident.
6. We are submitting this case to COPE and will also be referring it to the journal's internal ethics committee. The matter now seems to have died down, but it raises many questions.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• Should the journal have handled this differently?
• Should the journal formally notify the first author's institution about her behaviour?
• Are the additional instructions to authors on our website and in rejection letters adequate? Should we do anything else to prevent this from happening again?
• Should peer reviewers who do research in the same field as authors of a paper declare this as a COI? If so, when? Almost all reviewers are chosen because they have expertise in the same field, and commonly their conclusions have differed in some respects from those of the authors. At present very few reviewers list this among their COIs.
 

A prospective author contacted the editorial office of a medical journal to request that an intended submission was not reviewed or consulted on by experts involved in a number of published guidelines on the topic of the paper. The author named some of these experts, which included members of the journal’s editorial board (including editor A).

The author justified this request by explaining that his paper disagrees with the published guidelines, and therefore he believed that the experts who contributed to the guidelines would “likely to be very negative and possibly biased”. The author stated that these experts, including some members of the editorial board, may have a conflict of interest.  The author stated that his request is permitted by COPE.

The author was asked by the editorial office to submit his paper with the letter that detailed his request. The author did submit the paper with an abridged letter, as he believed that the original letter was not appropriate to submit with the paper. The abridged letter makes the same request, but does not specifically name the experts.

The journal’s policy is for all reviewers and editorial board members to declare any conflicts of interest when commenting on a paper, so that their comments can be taken in the context of their conflict. If reviewers or editors do not feel they can be impartial, then they would be asked not to contribute to the editorial process for the paper.

To provide further context, the author has submitted three papers to the journal previously, which have been rejected. The most recent submission was unsuccessfully appealed. The author’s letter to the editorial office refers to the papers previously rejected by the journal and outlines where they have been accepted for publication and the positive feedback the author has received from outside parties. The author points out that this feedback is “in stark contrast to the very critical comments” from the journal’s editorial board. The author has submitted letters to the journal, which have been published. One of these letters was in response to a paper published by the journal and authored by editor A. After submission of the paper the author emailed the editorial office with the comments: “I am sure that [the journal] will make sure that this manuscript is treated judiciously and justly. I humbly request that [the journal] should make sure that any criticism by editors and reviewers is specific, clearly explained and justifiable. However, if significant errors remain in this regard and if as a result an important debate and patient safety takes a backseat then I will probably need to make a formal complaint to [the journal] against the paper by [editor A] in the interest of patient safety. It is my duty to express my concern that such a complaint could possibly potentially have significant repercussions for the author [editor A].’

In light of these comments the journal is keen to ensure that the author has no grounds for complaint against the journal.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• Can an author request for certain experts not to be involved in reviewing their paper?
• By not involving experts that could be particularly negative, is the journal then giving the paper an unfair advantage?