The journal published an original article in 2022. Recently, we received feedback from a third party that the paper is similar to the authors' other work published in 2019.
The Editorial Office then issued an internal audit and noticed that in the peer-review process, one reviewer and an associate suggested rejecting the paper. The Editor-in-Chief accepted the paper as a final decision and it was published. Also, journal contacted some board members to review the manuscript again, and the board member mentioned that he had viewed the 2019 version and suggested rejecting that one.
COPE advice
The editors may want to consider whether there is sufficient originality in the 2022 article to merit publication, or whether it constitutes either duplication or salami slicing, both of which are regarded as unethical practices.
A distinction should be drawn between a change of opinion in the editorial team and the decision-making being flawed to start with (for example, if there was a fundamental concern with the article that was overlooked). Fundamentally a decision needs to be made about whether there is sufficient new material to justify publication and if so, whether an Expression of Concern is necessary to provide a commentary explaining the editor’s decision. If the 2022 paper is a duplicate publication, meaning the content is repeated without any new data or analysis (one can bypass actual copying of text), then retraction would be warranted. If salami-slicing is suspected and the prior article were in the same journal, then the authors could be invited to rewrite the 2022 article as a letter referencing their earlier work. The Editor in Chief should also consider whether permission was granted for the reproduction of material from the 2019 article if needed. The journal might also wish to confirm whether there were any Conflicts of Interest between the author and the editors/reviewers.