Better guidance is needed for editorial expressions of concern

Abstract

On occasion, following the publication of a preprint or paper, serious concerns might be raised, either about the study, the author(s), or background processes related to either or all of these aspects. When editors-inchief (EiCs) have sufficient evidence and/or feedback from the authors and/or their institute, in the case of a serious ethical offense or methodological errors that may invalidate the paper's findings or ethical standing, they can retract the paper rapidly. However, in the interim period between receiving a report and seeking a solution, several weeks, months or even years might pass, and readers need to be alerted to its potential unreliability. In such an instance, the current alertive (but not corrective) document takes the form of an editorial expression of concern (EoC). However, a case might be unresolved for a long period of time, with an EoC attached to it, so EiCs are encouraged to seek a resolution as promptly as possible because there are academics who might need to cite and/or rely on that paper. Curiously, even though a comprehensive debate is provided by COPE ethics guidelines and ICMJE recommendations, which refer to EoCs, guidance is not entirely clear. For example, some COPE members issue a single EoC with a single digital object identifier for a cluster of papers, while other COPE members issue one EoC per paper. This paper makes an attempt to improve guidelines that editors could consider when faced with the dilemma of whether to issue an EoC, or not.

How to handle the academic literature of sex offenders? A post-publication protection mechanism is needed

“…as a citation to support a statement in their own paper). Very unfortunately, experience has shown that a sizeable volume of EoCs, particularly in journals claiming to follow COPE ethics guidelines, are superficial, opaque and lacking in details (Teixeira da Silva and Nazarovets, 2024). There is a risk that the perpetrator may legally threaten the EiC, journal or publisher, seeking to forcefully protect their reputation when faced with the prospect of an EoC or retraction that threatens their academic reputation.…”

“…Consequently, an EoC that alerts readers and the public that the integrity of the paper is being questioned as a result of an investigation into harassment or sexual abuse might never be published, or statements within it might be ambiguous or not reveal the real reason why the EoC was issued. EoCs can only be useful vessels of information, and forms of protection of the rights, values and dignity of victims, if they offer unfiltered truth that is legally protected by the publisher (Teixeira da Silva and Nazarovets, 2024).…”