A paper that has been accepted for publication in a journal has recently been found to be unsuitable for publication. The authors have been highlighted in other journals for disseminating misinformation regarding the treatment of COVID-19. An expression of concern has been issued on another article, similar to the one we are close to publishing, in another publisher's journal. We looked into the paper in our system further and have decided the peer review comments are insufficient. We would like to rescind the decision on this manuscript and send it to peer review for further comments. We do not want to add to the literature casuing misinformation regarding the tratment of COVID-19.
During the production process of the manuscript, the author has emailed the production editor saying people will try to pay us to shut down the paper before it is published. This has added an extra layer of concern to how the situation is handled.
What the editors plan to do
Contact the author to explain the manuscript requires further peer review.
Send the manuscript for two further sets of peer review comments.
Provide the author with the new set of peer review comments.
COPE advice
Journal editors have complete authority over what is published in their journal, at any stage, so even if a paper has received an acceptance decision, if concerns have been raised the editors may choose to have additional peer review, delay publication, or even overturn the decision to accept. That said, given the additional publicity in this case, the journal may want to minimise the risks of bad publicity or claims of censorship, and place the manuscript on hold rather than rescinding the acceptance at this stage.
Any decision to have the paper re-reviewed should be based on whether there are deemed to have been flaws in the original peer review process or in the paper itself. For example, if the peer reviewers missed fact checks, exaggeration bias, or overconfident reporting of findings or the literature, the technical editor can ask for revisions directly rather than sending it out again. Conversely, re-review would be recommended there were concerns about the original peer-review process, such as undeclared conflicts of interest or recognition that reviewers were author-nominated reviewers and returned too fast and favourable reports.
Additional review would also be necessary if the editor realises that the dataset or research ethics are questionable because of a retraction elsewhere involving the same study, or there has been duplicate or salami publishing. If the authors did not declare that their other article was under investigation this would be a failure to disclose information.
