Is There a Case for an International Medical Scientific Press Council?
(JAMA. 1994;272:166-167)
Douglas G. Altman; Iain Chalmers, MSc; Andrew Herxheimer, FRCP
Serious abuse of editorial power is rarely publicized, but
evidence that it occurs is accumulating. Authors who believe that they
have been dealt with unfairly have little possibility of a hearing of
their complaint, and cases cannot easily be publicized because of fears
of legal action. We describe briefly three cases in which the alleged
misdeeds indicate that there were legitimate questions that needed
answers. In the first case, an editor republished a previously
published article without the authors' permission (but stated the
opposite), attacked it in an accompanying editorial, and then denied
the authors the right of reply. The other cases concerned a
commissioned review article that was plagiarized and an editor with an
undisclosed vested interest. An appeal process is needed for authors
who think that they are victims of editorial abuse of power. We suggest
that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors turn its
attention to editorial misconduct and explore possible procedures for
allowing authors' grievances to be heard and for possible sanctions if
complaints are upheld. An International Medical Scientific Press
Council might be established to produce a code of conduct for editors
and a corresponding taxonomy of inappropriate editorial behavior.
(JAMA. 1994;272:166-167)
THE PRESSURES on medical researchers to publish and
the consequent lapses of scientific standards have become well
documented in recent years, most recently by Lock and
Wells.[1] Much less often discussed are failures by editors
(and reviewers) to behave honestly and honorably toward authors.
Dewey[2] recently raised several important issues in his
review of problems encountered by authors when dealing with journals.
Most of his examples relate to inefficiency or poor procedures, such as
making extensive changes to a manuscript after acceptance but not
showing the changes to the author until the proof stage. Others are
more serious, such as rejecting a manuscript after acceptance (perhaps
because of a change of editor) or after all the conditions of a
conditional acceptance have been met and abuse of power when the editor
is also an author. Refusal to allow authors the right of reply when a
journal has published correspondence criticizing their article is
another occasional difficulty. Unethical editorial practices also
occur, but they have rarely been described. In this article, we
consider the published evidence and give brief details of three cases
in which misconduct may have occurred. Against this background we then
consider how aggrieved authors might seek redress.
EVIDENCE
Previously Publicized Cases
Rennie[3] summarized the infamous case of Sir Cyril Burt, who
used his position as editor to publish many of his own research papers
(some allegedly containing fictitious data and with nonexistent
coauthors), altered the text of other authors' manuscripts without
their agreement, and published letters to the editor that he had
written himself under false names to attack a rival.
Another publicized case concerned the guest editor of a special
conference issue of a journal. The editor included within the special
issue one of his own manuscripts that was not sent for peer review
(unlike all the other manuscripts), was not appropriate to the content
of the journal, and had not even been presented at the meeting.
We are not aware of other published cases of editorial misconduct,
although the concept has been briefly discussed before[3] [4]
Additional Cases
We know of three additional cases of apparent editorial impropriety. We
do not seek to establish here that there was misconduct, only that
there was clear evidence suggestive of possible misconduct.
Reluctantly, we have had to comply with legal advice not to give full
details of any of these cases. However, we give brief descriptions of
the main allegations. (We note that none of us was an author of any of
these articles.)
Case 1.--An editor republished in full an article that had
previously appeared in another journal. Although this was stated to be
with the authors' permission, the authors had not in fact been
consulted. Publication was accompanied by a hostile editorial attacking
the article. The authors were originally refused the right of reply to
this editorial. When we tried to publish an account of the case, the
editor gave a misleading account of events to try to dissuade another
editor from publishing our manuscript.
Case 2.--A scientist was invited by an editor to write
a review article. He submitted the manuscript and received a letter of
thanks and, a while later, the proofs (returned by courier, as
requested), but his review was not published. About 6 months later he
noticed in Current Contents, an indexing publication, that an
article with the same title had been published in the same journal.
When he read it he realized that the authors must have seen his own
article. Most of the introduction and much of the following text was
identical or almost identical to the text of his own manuscript. The
author received no reply, let alone an explanation, from the editor.
Case 3.--A manuscript describing a randomized controlled
trial comparing two active drugs and placebo was submitted to a
journal. This manuscript reported serious adverse effects of one of the
drugs. Unknown to the authors, the editor of the journal to which the
manuscript had originally been submitted was a paid consultant of the
manufacturers of the drug. The editor sent the manuscript to several
reviewers including at least one who was employed by the pharmaceutical
company in question. While we do not argue against the use of industry
reviewers in general, in this case the use of one or more reviewers
with the same vested interest as the editor could only decrease the
possibility of the manuscript's being assessed fairly even when, as in
this case, it was also sent to several other referees. The manuscript
was rejected and was not published until 2 years later in a much less
prominent journal.
COMMENT
In recent years, author misconduct has rightly received considerable
publicity. By contrast, editorial misconduct seems to have been almost
totally neglected. Some aspects of editorial behavior fall into the
category of inefficiency or unfairness rather than
dishonesty--Dewey[2] discussed several examples. A more
important difficulty arises when an editor is also an author. Although
Dewey[2] suggested that journals should publicize their
policy for dealing with this case, Rennie[3] felt that there
are compelling reasons why an editor should not publish research in his
or her own journal if he or she made the decision about that research.
Our main focus in this article, however, is not editorial inefficiency
or unfairness. It is actual dishonesty by editors toward
authors--misdeeds that would violate an editorial code of conduct if
one existed.
The cases of clear or possible editorial misconduct of which we are
aware fall into three main categories--dishonesty,
favoritism/victimization, and conflict of interest. The last of these
categories is one of the few aspects of misconduct that has received
any attention. The target group here has largely been authors and
reviewers, although the statement by the International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors[5] does extend to conflict of interest for editors.
Reluctance to Publicize Misdeeds
As was initially the case with attempts to raise consciousness about
fraud by authors, it is tempting to suggest that the few publicized
cases are the only ones and that there is no real problem. Because of
the secrecy inherent in the editorial aspects of scientific publishing
and fears of litigation, incidents such as the ones we have described
herein are unlikely to be publicized. We simply do not know either the
frequency or scope of unacceptable editorial behavior. Regardless of
its true prevalence, it is clear from informal discussions that many
researchers believe that they have been victims of unethical behavior
by editors. There is currently no outlet for complaints against
perceived editorial abuse of power, and it is also extremely difficult
to publish details of particular cases. We have full documentation of
case 1, but have failed in our attempts to publish a full account of
it. Not surprisingly, the journal with the ex-editor whom we were
accusing of misconduct was not interested. Two other journals that had
been involved in the case to some degree suggested that their readers
"would not be interested in the behavior of an editor of a journal
with which they are not familiar." Two more journals that had not
been involved did not see why they should publish the story. One
journal never responded to our submission. We believe that at least two
of these six journals were concerned about the legal implications of
the allegations in our manuscript. Although convinced of the importance
of publicizing such episodes--not to be vindictive but to heighten
awareness of the phenomenon of editorial abuse of power--we eventually
abandoned our attempts to do so.
What Can Be Done?
Editors were at first reluctant to face the issue of scientific fraud
by authors, so it is not surprising that they are unwilling to
publicize failings of their editorial colleagues. That said, editors
have valid concerns about the legal implications, and it is undeniable
that they have no responsibility to publish such allegations. We wanted
to give fuller details of the cases summarized herein but had to accept
legal advice against doing so.
We suggest, therefore, that the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors should consider editorial misconduct and investigate
possible procedures for allowing authors' grievances to be heard. In
particular, an International Scientific Press Council might be
created[6] (or perhaps a Medical Scientific Press
Council). It would be useful for such a council to produce a code of conduct for
editors and a corresponding taxonomy of inappropriate editorial behavior.
We would hope that journals would sign an agreement to abide by a
prespecified investigation procedure. The nonparticipation by journals
in this system would then be a matter of public record. Likewise, if a
journal signed the agreement and then failed to comply with the agreed
procedures, this too would become public knowledge. We would hope that
a consequence of this system would be greater accountability of
editors. As with other potentially contentious issues, there should be
considerable advantages in journals having considered the issue before
any case arose.
What should happen if a complaint against an editor is upheld? Clearly
the appropriate outcome would depend on the seriousness of the offense.
The first requirement would be to publish the judgment and rectify the
offense, if this is possible. Other possibilities include the wider
publication of the council's ruling, perhaps in a publication such as
the bulletins of the European Association of Science Editors or the
Council of Biology Editors or in a leading scientific journal (based on
a rotation system) or both. When the journal is run by or for a
professional society, the editor has a clear additional responsibility
to that society. Therefore, another route for complaints to be aired is
via the publications or journals committee of the society, but probably
few societies have a specific mechanism for dealing with such cases.
Nearly all journals have editorial boards, however, and we imagine that
members might not be too keen on maintaining their contacts with an
editor who has been acting unethically.
Finally, we emphasize that we are not suggesting that such a council
would act in a policing role. Rather it would act as an appellate
organization existing to set appropriate standards and determine if
these standards had been breached.
From the Medical Statistics Laboratory, Imperial Cancer Research
Fund, London (Mr Altman), and the Cochrane Centre, National Health
Service Research and Development Programme, Oxford (Drs Chalmers and
Herxheimer), England.
Presented in part at the Second International Congress on Peer Review
in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, September 11, 1993.
We gratefully thank the authors of the manuscripts for providing
details of cases 1 through 3.
Reprint requests to Medical Statistics Laboratory, Imperial Cancer
Research Fund, PO Box 123, 61 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, England
WC2A 3PX (Mr Altman).
References
1. Lock S, Wells F, eds. Fraud and Misconduct in
Scientific Research. London, England: British Medical Association;
1993.
2. Dewey M. Authors have rights too. BMJ.
1993;306:318-320.
3. Rennie D. Problems in peer review and fraud: cleave ever
to the sunnier side of doubt. In: Balancing Act: Essays to Honour
Stephen Lock. London, England: Keynes Press; 1991:9-19.
4. LaFollette MC. Stealing Into Print. Berkeley:
University of California Press; 1992.
5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Conflict of interest. Lancet. 1993;341:742-743.
6. Herxheimer A. Make scientific journals more responsive
and responsible. Scientist. March 20, 1989:9, 11.
Table of Contents
