JOURNAL EDITORS NAVIGATE ETHICAL CHALLENGES: RESCINDING A DECISION POST-ACCEPTANCE
In a unique and challenging scenario, journal editors are confronted with the need to reconsider the acceptance of a manuscript that has recently been accepted for publication. The authors of the paper, which focuses on COVID-19 treatment, have come under scrutiny in other journals for disseminating misinformation on the same topic. Additionally, an expression of concern has been issued for a similar article in another publisher's journal.
Upon further investigation, it has been determined that the peer review comments on the accepted manuscript are insufficient. Adding to the complexity, the author has expressed concerns about potential attempts to influence the decision to publish the paper.
Editors' Proposed Action Plan:
-
Contact the Author: Initiate communication with the author to transparently explain the need for additional peer review, citing concerns about misinformation and the inadequacy of the initial review process.
-
Additional Peer Review: Subject the manuscript to two further rounds of peer review to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the content. This step aims to address the deficiencies identified in the initial review.
-
Communication with Author: Provide the author with the new set of peer review comments, fostering transparency and collaboration in the revision process.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidance: COPE advises that journal editors retain complete authority over the publication process and can choose to revisit a decision at any stage. In cases where concerns about misinformation and potential flaws in the peer review process arise, the decision to re-review the manuscript is deemed appropriate.
However, given the heightened visibility of the case, the journal should consider minimizing the risk of negative publicity and claims of censorship. Placing the manuscript on hold rather than rescinding the acceptance at this stage may be a prudent approach.
The decision to re-review should be guided by a careful assessment of flaws in the original peer review process or the manuscript itself. Factors such as missed fact checks, bias, or questionable research ethics warrant additional review. Any failure by the authors to disclose relevant information, such as an ongoing investigation into a related article, should also be considered in the decision-making process.
In navigating this complex situation, the editors aim to uphold the integrity of the publication process, address concerns about misinformation, and ensure that the final decision aligns with ethical standards in scientific publishing.
