The Editor-in-Chief of a prominent journal recently faced a challenging situation involving a corresponding author's refusal to comply with proposed editorial changes for their brief communication. The author expressed concern that the suggested edits extended beyond typical formatting adjustments and requested a delay in publication until the next Editor-in-Chief assumes the role.
Despite the section editor's recommendation for acceptance with the proposed revisions, the author asserted that some edits were inappropriate. This disagreement raised questions about the author's compliance during the review process, prompting the current Editor-in-Chief to decide against renewing their contract, citing repeated anonymous accusations regarding prolonged journal timelines.
In response to this scenario, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) offers valuable guidance. It emphasizes the editor's right to make changes for style, grammar, and readability, while acknowledging the author's right to disagree and choose not to publish if they feel edits are objectionable.
COPE suggests a collaborative approach, wherein authors are given an opportunity to provide annotated feedback on areas requiring further work. The editor can set a deadline for the authors to make a decision. If disagreements persist, involving another senior editor without conflicts of interest to arbitrate the case is proposed, with both parties agreeing to accept the outcome.
Additionally, COPE underscores the importance of clear journal guidelines outlining procedures for copy, technical, and style editing. Authors should be aware of the journal's right to edit content that may be offensive, biased, factually incorrect, or libelous, issues that may only surface during post-acceptance editing.
This case study highlights the complexities of author-editor dynamics and the need for transparent communication and procedures to navigate such disagreements in the scholarly publishing process.