UNETHICAL COLLABORATION UNEARTHED: COAUTHORSHIP CONTROVERSY IN JOURNAL MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCESS
In a shocking turn of events, suspicions arose regarding potential collaboration between a reviewer and an author, resulting in the controversial coauthorship of a submitted manuscript. The manuscript, originally a single-author submission, underwent standard processing within the journal's electronic submission system.
The author, in the accompanying letter, recommended two potential reviewers. The initial reviews, labeled as "Accept after major revision" (rev A) and "Accept after minor revision" (rev B), prompted the Associate Editor to decide on an "Accept after major revision" status. The revised version arrived with a surprising revelation—two authors, with the second author bearing the same name as reviewer A.
Disturbed by this discovery, the reviewing process was immediately halted. The editor-in-chief and Managing Editor sought clarification from the original author, who confirmed the coauthorship of the revised version with reviewer A.
Upon inquiry, the author explained that reviewer A assisted in enhancing the manuscript's grammar, logic, and provided additional references. The author justified the coauthorship by citing shared expertise in experimental methods.
In response, the editor-in-chief assigned the paper to reviewer C to assess its worthiness for publication. The final recommendation from this review was a clear rejection.
COPE Guidance: Investigating Unethical Behavior
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises editors to thoroughly investigate instances of potential unethical behavior. It suggests engaging the reviewer in dialogue to understand their perspective and evaluate if the criteria for authorship are legitimately met. If the reviewer has made a substantial contribution, re-review the paper with a new reviewer. The case need not be reported to the institution immediately unless deemed necessary.
Follow-up Actions: Uncovering the Truth
Following COPE guidance, the editor contacted the reviewer for an explanation. Simultaneously, an independent reviewer assessed the manuscript, resulting in a unanimous recommendation to reject the submission. The unfolding saga sheds light on the importance of maintaining ethical standards in the peer review process.
