The Editor-in-Chief of a journal received a message from a corresponding author of a brief communication, stating that the proposed editorial edits were beyond typical formatting edits at this stage. They felt said many edits were not appropriate, would need further response and suggested holding this article (which had already been in process with the journal for over a year) for the next editor-in-chief when they are appointed.
The section editor recommended the article for acceptance with the proposed editorial revisions and overall there was agreement that the revisions improved readability and clarity especially for readers that may not be well acquainted with the overall topic of the paper. There had also been some issues during the review process with the authors not always complying with recommendations from the section editor.
The present Editor-in-Chief has decided not to renew their contract, based on repeat anonymous accusations that the timelines of the journal are too long.
COPE advice
The editor has the right to edit, for journal style, grammar, readability etc. The author has the right to disagree and has a right not to publish. They cannot be forced to publish if they disagree with the edits.
Alternatively the authors could be given the opportunity to email back annotations showing areas that need further work. The editor can give a deadline for a decision from the authors.
If that fails, another option would be to use another senior editor of the journal (independent of the earlier process and with no conflicts of interest) to arbitrate the case, with both sides agreeing to accept the outcome.
The editor may wish to check that the journal guidelines clearly state the procedure about copy, technical, and/or style editing and formatting, so that authors know what to expect. It should also be pointed out that the journal has the right to edit content that is offensive, biased, factually wrong, libellous, etc. These issues sometimes do not come to light until post-acceptance editing; acceptance after peer review does not mean the accepted version is going to be published as it is.