MISREPRESENTATION OF JOURNAL DECISION ON SOCIAL MEDIA SPARKS CONTROVERSY
A recent incident involving the misrepresentation of a journal decision on social media has sparked controversy within academic circles. Here's what happened:
An author submitted an invited paper to a journal and received a decision of 'major revision' following a double anonymous peer review. However, the author chose not to revise the paper, effectively withdrawing it due to disagreements with the reviewers. Subsequently, the author posted the article on personal and other websites, falsely claiming that it was rejected by reviewers, rather than being asked for major revisions.
Moreover, the author named the journal and editor personally in their commentary, alleging bias against the subject matter. Despite private comments from reviewers indicating no bias, the author persisted in their claims. The publisher intervened, requesting the author to correct the misinformation, but to no avail.
Upon being alerted to the misleading posts, the editor twice requested the author to remove references identifying the journal, emphasizing the incorrectness of the information. In response, the author publicly disclosed their request for the publisher to reveal individual reviewer recommendations.
According to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) advice, the journal's options are limited unless the authors have made defamatory statements. However, the editor may choose to contact the author to clarify journal policies, emphasizing adherence to peer review processes and confidentiality. The editor could also request the correction of the misinformation and the removal of content derived from review reports.
In cases where authors persist in misrepresentation, escalating the matter to involve their institution may be necessary to ensure correction and future education on proper academic conduct.
