Case
An article accepted for publication in a journal was recently deemed unpublishable. The authors have been covered in other journals for misinformation about the treatment of COVID-19. Another article, similar to the one the journal was about to publish, raised concerns in another publisher's journal. The editors reviewed the article in detail in their system and decided that peer review comments were not enough.

During the manuscript review process, the author sent an email to the editor saying that people would try to pay the journal to retract the article before it was published. This added an extra level of concern to how newsrooms would handle the situation.

What the editors plan to do
Contact the author to explain that the manuscript needs further peer review.
Submit the manuscript for additional comments from experts.
Provide the author with a new set of peer review comments.

COPE advice
Journal editors have complete control over what is published in their journal at any stage, so even if a paper has received an acceptance decision, if concerns have been raised, the editors may choose to review further, delay publication or even reverse the acceptance decision . However, given the additional publicity in this case, the journal may want to minimize the risks of bad publicity or claims of censorship and suspend the manuscript rather than withdraw acceptance at this stage.

Any decision to re-review an article should be based on whether there are flaws in the original review process or in the article itself. For example, if reviewers have omitted fact-checking, exaggerated bias, or overconfidently reported findings or literature, the technical editor can request an edit directly rather than resubmit. Conversely, re-review would be recommended if there were doubts about the initial review process, such as an undeclared conflict of interest or recognition that the reviewers were author-designated reviewers and returned overly prompt and favorable reports.

Additional review will also be necessary if the editor realizes that the data set or research ethics are questionable because of a retraction elsewhere related to the same study, or because of the publication of duplicates or salami. If the authors did not announce that their other paper was under investigation, that would mean not disclosing information that would "unduly influence the interpretation of the paper or the recommendations of the editors and reviewers."

Source: https://entc.com.ua/uk/2047-skasuvannya-rishennya-pislya-pryynyattya-statti-do-publikatsiyi