In a recent development, concerns have been raised about a publication in a prominent biological sciences journal (Journal A) that extensively relies on research previously published in a lower-impact factor journal (Journal B) and other sources. The author of the corresponding paper in Journal B, along with several other esteemed scientists in the field, has expressed apprehensions and called upon Journal A to investigate the peer review process associated with the controversial publication.
Upon reaching out to the editor of Journal A, the author of the paper in Journal B requested an opportunity to address the issue and "set the record straight" by contributing a piece to be published in Journal A. However, this request was declined, and instead, Journal A suggested posting a comment on their website. This alternative was deemed to have lower visibility than the original article.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on defending the reputation of the authors rather than scrutinizing the peer review process. Given the absence of an ombudsman for Journal A and the lack of a printed letters section, the consensus among experts is that the authors should accept Journal A's offer to post a comment on their website. This would bring the issue into the public domain, fostering discussion and debate.
However, some argue that posting a comment on the website may not be sufficient, as it lacks citability and a DOI, making it unlinked to the original article. Authors are advised to express their concerns to the editor once again and request the publication of their response. If the editor refuses to publish the complaint, it could raise questions about their adherence to COPE's Code of Conduct, which mandates the encouragement of debate and the publication of cogent criticisms unless there are compelling reasons to refrain.
