Approximately a year after the publication of a scholarly article, a journal received a startling letter from one of the authors alleging they hadn't seen the paper's reviews, revisions, or even approved its final version for publication. This claim was echoed by other authors, citing a breakdown in communication with the complainant. Notably, the corresponding author, who affirmed all authors had granted approval, was also the journal's editor-in-chief during the paper's processing.
The complainant refrained from seeking withdrawal of the paper but expressed a desire to publish a correction or addendum post-reviewer comments' review. Additionally, the employing institution of the co-authors, with whom the complainant had previously been associated, has also been involved in the matter, though the outcome remains unknown.
Previously, the journal's policy required only the corresponding author to sign an exclusive license form, affirming authorization from co-authors. In response to the situation, the journal revised its policy, now requiring all authors to sign an authorship declaration form, confirming their compliance with authorship criteria.
Furthermore, the journal extended an offer to the complainant to review the reviewers' comments and contribute an addendum or comment, if necessary. An apology from the authors for proceeding with publication without the complainant's approval was also published.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was consulted for advice on the journal's proposed actions to address the situation.
It was confirmed that the paper had been handled without bias, absolving the editor-in-chief of misconduct. Recommendations were made to enhance transparency, including recording email addresses of all authors for online submissions and ensuring all authors sign the copyright form.
Given the institute's awareness of the issue, further contact was deemed unnecessary. The publication of the apology was deemed sufficient reparation for the editor-in-chief, as agreed upon by the Forum.