As a reviewer, what steps can I take after paper is published despite major scientific and ethical concerns, with no explanation from editor?

Question

I recently reviewed a manuscript for a journal I didn't know very well, but which was indexed on Pubmed and Scopus and seemed to be legitimate. In my review, I recommended rejection based on what I considered to be substantial flaws in methodology, data analysis, and interpretation. In addition, I had ethical concerns about the manuscript, including suspicions of self-plagiarism and possible copyright infringement. It seemed that the authors had inappropriately reused text, data, and figures from an article that they had previously published in another journal. I detailed all of these concerns in my report to the editor.

After an automated response from the editor acknowledging receipt of my review, I heard nothing from the journal for 3-4 months. Out of curiosity, I looked online and was surprised to find that the manuscript was already in print! In fact, it had been published less than 2 months after I submitted my review, and the published version is essentially identical to the draft version I reviewed.

I have since made multiple attempts to contact the editor, but have received no response. To be clear, I certainly understand that the editorial team may not agree with my review, but I have been quite disappointed to have received no response to address the scientific and ethical issues I raised. If nothing else, in my experience (and I realize this may be a niche-specific expectation) an editor for any reputable journal will keep reviewers apprised of the editorial progress of manuscripts they have reviewed.

Some readers have asked whether this is an online open-access journal with article processing charges, but instead it is a subscription-based journal. Thus, the journal and publisher are not eligible for inclusion on Beall's List (scholarlyoa.com).

Are there any other steps I can or should take? Anyhow, if I continue to be ignored by the editor, I am considering sharing this information with the editorial board of the journal that published the original paper (the one that I think may have been self-plagiarized).

Answer 1

There may not be much you can do about the scientific issues. A profoundly wrong paper should be retracted, and a correction should be issued for anything serious that's objectively wrong and correctable. However, the problems you've identified (poor methodology and interpretation) may not definitively fall into these categories, depending on what exactly you mean. There's no ethical reason why a journal can't have low standards or publish controversial papers. The primary risk is that their reputation will suffer if they publish foolish papers.

It would indeed by unethical if they claim to be a peer-reviewed journal but aren't taking the review process seriously at all, and that sounds like what's going on here. However, it would be difficult to prove based on an outsider's view of one case. I imagine that if pressed, the editor would claim he/she evaluated the paper and your review and decided the paper was more credible. It would be hard to prove that there was an ethical problem, rather than just poor scientific judgment on the part of the editor.

On the other hand, the allegations of copyright infringement and self-plagiarism are ethical issues that transcend journal standards or policies. That might be a good place to begin, and perhaps more will come out during the investigation.

Here are some thoughts:

1. Your proposal to share this information with the editorial board of the previous journal sounds like a good idea. I'd contact the publisher directly as well as the editorial board.

2. There may be an ethics committee in a relevant professional or learned society. They could conduct an impartial investigation, which might lead to public censure or a retraction.

3. You could report these papers to the authors' funding agency, if any.

4. You could report these papers to the authors' employers.

5. You could publicize your experience on the web.

Among these possibilities, #1 and #2 seem most likely to make a difference regarding the journal, #3 and #4 might lead somewhere with the authors but wouldn't address the problematic nature of the journal, and #5 could be a valuable public service but is unlikely to change much by itself.

Answer 2

This happens. A lot. You can continue to try to do the right thing, but it may end up earning you a reputation as a trouble maker which may come back to bite you in the back side.

I have said this before, and despite downvotes I will say it again: if an influential author gets rubbish published despite clear reviews pointing out the problems, you will often find that author and editor are beer buddies at "the conferences".