Results from our survey 'Editing reviewer comments' and new cases recently discussed at COPE Forum

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
COPE Digest
JUNE 2020, Vol 8

Issue 6: New cases | Editing reviewer comments

Welcome to the June issue of COPE Digest.

At this time we pay our respects to the memory of George Floyd, whose brutal killing has amplified issues of systemic racism in our society. We wish to voice our horror and outrage at the egregious violence, injustice, and marginalisation faced by people of colour in the US and throughout the world. We support all who stand against prejudice and discrimination of any kind.

We wanted to take this moment to recognise that scholarly publishing is not sufficiently diverse and representative, and to reiterate COPE's commitment to improving equity and inclusivity in our areas of influence, including within our own organisation. The strategic plan ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) we published in February specifically identifies diversity and inclusion in our membership as an area of focus, and we want to play an active role in increasing diversity in scholarship, peer review, and publishing. There is much, much more to do.

While many editors, reviewers, and authors continue to live and work in a changed environment because of coronavirus, there has been an increased need for advice and support during this time. We bring together support and guidance ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) that has been brought to our attention during the crisis.

It’s worth repeating COPE Chair Deborah Poff's statement in our April Digest ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) : 'Editors should stay true to their editorial policies, maintain high standards while being aware of their public health responsibilities. Peer review quality and transparency remain as important as ever. If a journal editor decides that usual procedures need to be amended temporarily, this should be declared in any affected manuscripts as an editorial note.'

This year we have been looking at why an editor might edit peer reviews and when or if it is acceptable to do so. We hosted a Forum discussion ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) with COPE members, and shared an online questionnaire ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) with both members and non-members.

Interesting and informative opinions emerged from both the Forum and the online survey

READ MORE ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) >

COPE Trustees Nancy Chescheir & Caroline Porter


** SURVEY: EDITING OF REVIEWER COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Forum discussion in March, we shared a survey asking for your views of an editor's ability to alter the contents of a submitted peer review. The results are now on our website.

About 15% said they believed it is never acceptable for an editor to edit a peer reviewer’s comments and about 25% said they believed it is never acceptable to suppress a complete review. The most common reasons cited for editing reviews were related to unacceptable reviewer comments because they were inflammatory, hostile, or otherwise offensive, or factually incorrect. Other important reasons why editors said they edited reviews were because the reviewers were non-compliant with the journal’s instructions for reviews.

Some comments supported the role of the editor-in-chief as responsible for the peer review process and that editors should have the freedom to set the tone of the content of the peer reviews. Although a minority believed it was never appropriate to edit or suppress reviews, they raised concerns that allowing this would invest too much power in the editor; some described this as a ‘slippery slope’.

Of those who said that they edited reviewer comments, about 61% (67/109) said they either always or sometimes make a note of it in the manuscript manager system. The question was not specifically asked, but several respondents commented about communicating with the reviewer if the editor edited their comments.

READ SURVEY RESULTS ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) >


** LOW-RISK STUDY WITH NO ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL
------------------------------------------------------------
A submitted manuscript described an advocacy campaign in a lower-middle income country that used social media to promote an online petition supporting a proposed law. The authors were from an international non-governmental organisation and the country’s government, which together funded and conducted the campaign. The manuscript also reported on data from an online survey of the petition signers that had not been reviewed by a research ethics committee. The authors claimed that the survey was low risk, the participants had consented, and the data were not of a sensitive nature (eg, demographics and how people learnt of the campaign) and were aggregated, thereby precluding identification of any individuals.

In this case discussion Trevor Lane shares advice given by the COPE Forum, adds to the discussion with further analysis and links to guidance relevant to all disciplines.

READ CASE DISCUSSION ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) >


** ADVICE ON NEW CASES
------------------------------------------------------------
The cases presented at the COPE Forum on Tuesday 2 June 2020, together with the advice given and updates on previous cases, are now on the COPE website.

New cases:
* 20-05 Approval needed for social media survey? ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
* 20-06 Ethics approval for survey design ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
* 20-07 Author admits failure to credit other authors ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
* 20-08 Author displays bullying behaviour towards handling editor ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))

Updates on existing cases:
* 20-01 Institution refuses to investigate scientific issues ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
* 20-02 Institution wants retract despite ongoing legal proceedings ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))




** SUBMIT YOUR CASE
------------------------------------------------------------
COPE Members: if you have a publication ethics issue you're currently dealing with and need advice from other COPE members, you can submit your case for discussion and advice at the next forum on Friday 4 September 2020.
[link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)
[link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)
COPE Forum


** DISCUSSION TOPIC: WHAT DOES PEER REVIEW MEAN IN THE ARTS, HUMANITIES, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
------------------------------------------------------------
The full discussion is now on our website. Questions discussed by the participants of the Forum included:
* Are there differences in gender and diversity issues in these disciplines in peer review from others?
* What mechanisms might be introduced to deal with language quality and inclusivity matters?
* Are standards of expertise different when addressing certain topics that have social, gender, transgender, race and ethnicity involved in the research?
* Are some topics off limits for some researchers? Whose problem is this?

READ THE FULL DISCUSSION ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) >
In the News


** LATEST PUBLICATION ETHICS NEWS
------------------------------------------------------------
This month COPE Council members have gathered news items that include articles on diversity, open access, COVID-19, and more. Here are just a few:
* How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research
* ASAPbio and the attendees of the #biopreprints2020 workshop are looking to get community feedback on the perceived benefits and concerns around preprints, through their survey.
* IOP Publishing is piloting co-reviews pairing early-career researchers with mentors throughout the peer-review process.
* A cross-publisher group is working to set standards for software to screen images for evidence of alteration, similar to iThenticate checks for plagiarism.

READ ALL NEWS ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) >


** TEXT RECYCLING
------------------------------------------------------------
FRIDAY 7 AUGUST 2020
WEBINAR

On Friday 7 August 4-5.30pm (BST) we will hear from Cary Moskovitz and members of the team who are running the Text Recycling Research Project. They will share their latest findings since they presented at our European Seminar ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) in 2019.

Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, is a common practice in research writing, especially in the sciences. It is complicated, both ethically and legally, posing thorny challenges for both authors and editors. The Text Recycling Research Project (TRRP) aims to better understand this practice and support the development of more clear and consistent policies. Members of the TRRP will present an overview of their research to date and discuss the ethical and practical issues involved in establishing effective policy.

REGISTER TODAY ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) >
Other Events
Visit our events page to read more about upcoming events which include discussions on publication ethics issues.
* COPE Council member, Trevor Lane, is speaking at the webinar 'Research and publishing ethics: challenges and best practices' organised by Taylor & Francis and the Society of China University Journals, 13 July 2020.
* An STM webinar kicks off the public consultation for a standard taxonomy for peer review that is being developed as part of an STM initiative, 14 July 2020.
* How can integrity in peer-review improve academic publishing? Reviewer Credits are hosting a free webinar with speaker Ana Marušić, 15 July 2020.
* ISMTE North America online event 'Evolving Trends in Scholarly Publishing', 4-7 August 2020

EVENTS ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST)) >


** COPE Digest Editor:
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy C Chescheir, MD, Editor-in-Chief, Obstetrics and Gynecology

============================================================
** facebook.com/publicationethics ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
** facebook.com/publicationethics ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
** @C0PE ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
** @C0PE ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
** LinkedIn ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
** LinkedIn ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
** Publicationethics.org ([link removed](EDITING_REVIEWER_COMMENTS_JUNE_2020_DIGEST))
Copyright ©2020 COPE,
All rights reserved.

Registered charity No 1123023. Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: New Kings Court, Tollgate, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh, Hampshire, SO53 3LG, UK

You are receiving this email because you or your journal is a member of COPE or you have subscribed to COPE emails.
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.