Responding to Suspected Research Misconduct

Academic journals must have a clearly described process for handling allegations of misconduct, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher's attention. This process should be documented on the journal's website. Journals must take allegations of misconduct seriously, both pre-publication and post-publication.

Key actions and principles include:

Establishing Clear Procedures and Contact Points:

Editors should have mechanisms for receiving and responding to allegations of research, publication, and review misconduct.
The journal should define the types of misconduct relevant to its field and outline policies and procedures for handling them.
A contact person should be designated to handle allegations of misconduct and ethics enquiries.
Journals should have a person or panel to handle ethics issues, review allegations, and initiate impartial and confidential investigations.
Journal guidelines and processes must be transparent, informing authors, reviewers, and readers of submission, review, publication, and grievance procedures.
Systems must be in place to promptly attend to and resolve all complaints related to publication ethics.

Investigating Allegations:

Journals are generally encouraged to first request a response from those suspected of misconduct.
However, if journals have strong suspicions or believe authors might alter or destroy evidence, the institution could be the first point of contact. Journal guidance for authors should state that material will be handled in confidence except in order to investigate possible misconduct.
Journals should provide evidence to support allegations of misconduct or questionable practices, such as copies of overlapping publications or evidence of inappropriate image manipulation. They may need to protect the identity of complainants or peer reviewers.
Journals should investigate allegations of misconduct by researchers acting as editors or peer reviewers. For suspected reviewer misconduct, they should follow the appropriate COPE flowchart. They should have processes to investigate and manage editor, reviewer, or staff misconduct, such as undeclared conflicts of interest. Reviewers who repeatedly submit reviews with hostile or inappropriate content should be removed from the reviewer pool.
For cases involving anonymous whistleblowers, journals should have procedures for handling these allegations.

Cooperating with Institutions and Other Journals:

Journals should know when and how to liaise with other editors and institutions.
Journals should cooperate with investigations and respond promptly to institutions’ questions about misconduct allegations. They should inform institutions if misconduct by their researchers is suspected and provide supporting evidence.
Journals cannot adjudicate in authorship disputes but should refer such disputes to the relevant institutional officials. Journals rely on institutions to arbitrate these matters. However, journals can investigate potential misconduct related to the integrity of their publications and processes, such as authorship-for-sale cases.
When suspected misconduct involves several journals, editors should cooperate with each other and share information as required. Sharing information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct should only be undertaken when necessary to prevent and respond to suspected research misconduct.

Correcting the Published Record:

Journals have a responsibility to correct the literature when needed.
Journals have a duty to amend the published record if the research published is unreliable or fraudulent.
Journals should publish changes to published articles (corrections, expressions of concerns, addenda, retractions) according to COPE guidelines when provided with findings from institutional investigations.
Retraction: Editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable (due to major error, fabrication, falsification), it constitutes plagiarism, findings were previously published elsewhere without proper attribution (redundant publication), it contains unauthorised material, copyright has been infringed, there's a serious legal issue, it reports unethical research, it was published based on compromised peer review, or a major undisclosed competing interest would have unduly affected interpretations or recommendations. Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to seriously flawed content. Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed or misleading. Editors should have the final decision about retracting material. A retraction notice should state the reasons and basis for the retraction.
Correction: If only a small part of the article is affected and most results/conclusions are valid, a correction should be published instead of a retraction. Journals should be prepared to publish corrections when honest errors are admitted. If an authorship dispute does not doubt the validity of the findings, retraction is not appropriate; a correction may be published.
Expression of Concern: If conclusive evidence about the reliability of a publication cannot be obtained quickly, an editor could consider publishing an expression of concern. These alert readers to an ongoing review into actions likely to affect the reliability of published findings.
Journals must have mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting articles after publication.

Preventing Misconduct:

Journals should promote good publication practices and processes for identifying concerns in submissions early.
Journals should make efforts to detect misconduct before publication, such as screening for plagiarism, paper mill manuscripts, and peer review fraud.
A technical pre-check checklist for the editorial office includes checking for plagiarism reports and confirming compliance with ethics and copyright.

In summary, academic journals must have robust, transparent policies and documented procedures for handling suspected misconduct. They must take allegations seriously, investigate by requesting explanations and gathering evidence, cooperate with institutions and other journals, and correct the published record swiftly and appropriately through corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions based on the evidence. Journals also play a role in preventing misconduct through pre-publication checks and clear author guidelines.