Case
An article was published with seven authors. B was thanked for his contribution. A year later, B wrote to the editor describing two alleged incidents related to this article. First, the cohort reported in the article was one that B was working on. He was looking to collaborate with another research group. A grant application was submitted and received.

At that time, B, who was one of the signatories on the grant application, moved abroad, but the grant specifically included money for him to travel to his home country to continue the collaboration. In addition, all co-authors agreed that he would be a co-author of all subsequent works. As he cooperated, B felt that he was being pushed out of the group. A senior colleague in his home country felt the same way and eventually refused to cooperate. B did not know that an article from this study was being prepared for publication. He saw the article for the first time after publication. He contacted the editor only after several colleagues insisted that he disclose the matter. Not only was he not included as a full author on the paper, but his permission for acknowledgment was not sought, in direct violation of the Vancouver Group's guidelines.

A second claim about this article is that the hypothesis changed somewhat between the grant application and the published article. The hypothesis stated in the grant application is significantly different from the one stated in the introduction to the article. The results of the study support the hypothesis presented in the paper, but directly contradict the hypothesis presented in the grant application. B claims that the relevant research team engaged in post hoc hypothesis generation so that the results reflected their beliefs about the meaning of the data rather than their pre-specified hypothesis.

Another article by this research group, in which B is cited as an author, again without his permission, was held by the editor of a specialized journal pending the outcome of this particular case. All co-signatories and co-authors of the original grant application were asked (with B's permission) to express their views on the allegations. A further complication is that, although the granting body has a procedure for dealing with allegations of misconduct, one of the authors of the article is one of the directors of the unit.

COPE advice
The editor was advised to inform the grant-making body of this case and to tell them that he had referred the matter to COPE. The editor must also urge the granting authority to act with some urgency and, in the circumstances, the initial investigation cannot be delegated to the director of the unit. The editor must wait for responses from all co-authors and authors, and then show them to B.

Continuation of the situation
The editor has learned from all authors that the accuser knew about the work all along, and they deny his allegations. Their response to the editor's challenge to change the hypothesis was that this is the nature of scientific progress. However, it is clear from the answers that there are serious differences between the two sides of the cooperation. However, this team also disagreed with the allegations. The senior author now believes that the editor is "destroying" the collaboration and that all parties should get together and discuss it. In addition, the editor was contacted by the editor of another journal who received a similar article with authorship issues. 

Source: https://entc.com.ua/uk/2039-vtrachenyi-avtor-i-nova-hipoteza