Readership Awareness Series – Paper 8: Research Ethics and ‘Editorial Expressions of Concern’

INTRODUCTION

Post-publication peer review and literature correction are essential arms of publishing landscape and play a critical role in maintaining transparency in science. There are several ways of correcting the literature, including errata, corrigenda, expression of concern (EoC), and retraction.^1–5 The term ‘expression of concern’ was formally introduced in 1997 by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and later integrated into the National Library of Medicine (NLM) system in 2004. It is an editorial expression or publication notice that aims to draw the readers’ attention to possible problems (questionable validity of the data, methodology, and results) with a published work but does not go far enough to retract or place a formal correction.^1–4 EOCs are sometimes also referred to as ‘Notice of Concern’, or ‘Publisher’s note’. ‘EoCs are temporary communications to share concerns while an investigation is underway for a definitive resolution of the problem. Till April 2023, a Scopus search revealed 1675 EoCs, which reflects an increasing trend from the earlier times.⁴

INDICATIONS FOR ISSUING AN EoC

In their guidelines, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has advised that editors can consider issuing an EoC if.

1. They receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.⁶

2. There is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.⁶

3. They believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.⁶

4. An investigation is underway, but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.⁶

PROCESS OF ISSUING AN EoC

Several events can trigger the process of issuing an EOC. An investigation of scientific misconduct by a university or the author’s institution and complaints raised by authors or other author groups or investigators familiar with the research in question are common initiators. The concern or the complaint is officially raised with the journal with evidence to support the claims. There are no foolproof standardized protocols, but generally, the editor or the publisher then assesses the merit of the concern based on the evidence supplied. The complaint may be dismissed if the editor finds no indications for issuing an EoC. However, if there is any evidence of misconduct, the editor may seek clarification from the authors or the author’s institute. The author’s institute or university may be notified by the editor, and they may initiate an investigation for significant concerns. Pending the investigation outcome, the editor may publish an EoC to alert the readers on the possible and questionable validity of the results of the specific research work. An author’s consent is not required to publish an EoC.

COMPONENTS OF AN EoC

Although the language may vary, an EoC begins with a clear and boldly written ‘Expression of Concern’ followed by the title of the research paper in question. A common statement is regarding the questionable validity of the results and how and when the journal was alerted about it. Some EoCs refer to an ongoing investigation as a basis for the notice. The EoC can end with a statement of assurance from the journal or editor of upholding the highest standards of research ethics and providing further details when available. The ICMJE has clearly expressed its recommendation as ‘Expressions of concern and retractions should not simply be a letter to the editor. Rather, they should be prominently labelled, appear on an electronic or numbered print page that is included in an electronic or a print Table of Contents to ensure proper indexing, and include in their heading the title of the original article’. ⁷

OUTCOMES OF AN EoC

The outcomes of an EoC can be variable and are influenced by several factors, including the generation of conclusive evidence and inter-journal variations. The outcomes may be in the form of a retraction, correction, or withdrawal of expression. EoCs may also not mature into further action and may remain as originally published. Occasionally, additional EoCs may be published as follow-up notes based on the progress of the investigation. Withdrawal of expression is uncommon and is usually published with complete findings when the evidence contradicts the initial concern. A study which assessed 230 EoCs till 2016 found the retraction rate to be around 25%.³

LIMITATIONS OF AN EoC

There are no industry-wide standards and comprehensive guidelines regarding EoC. There needs to be more clarity among editors on their capacity, legal position, and implications while issuing EoC. The flexibility of the authorship (editor-in-chief, handling editor, editorial board, publisher) of the EoC is unclear. Inconsistencies in the process have led to the finding of absent EoCs for several papers that were retracted for scientific misconduct.^4,5 The lack of desirable author engagement and the prolonged investigation period can lead to anxiety and may harm the reputation of the researchers. An analysis of 19 EoCs in neurosciences showed resolution in 10 cases in an average of 220 days, while the remaining nine remained unresolved.² Similarly, research by others that had significant reliance on the retracted literature may be questioned, and an EoC for it may harm the group’s reputation even though they were not involved in any scientific misconduct per se.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The screening, peer review, editorial handling, and processing are constantly evolving and need to be strengthened.⁸ There have been proposals for author expression of concerns (AEoC) where the authors can formally raise their concerns about the legitimacy of the process and are given a fair chance to strengthen a two-way accountability system.⁹ There is also a proposal to make EoCs VACUP (verifiable, accurate, complete, updated, and public) compliant by making it more detailed.⁴ Although several organizations like the Council for Scientific Editors (CSE), ICMJE, and COPE have laid down guidelines, there is a need for standardization and requires concerted efforts from all the stakeholders, including journal editorial boards, publishers, and authors. Till then EoCs would remain one amongst the many tools in the armamentarium of the Editors to address potential concerns of scientific misconduct.

Disclosure statement

Mohammad Javed Ali receives royalties from Springer for the textbook “Principles and Practice of Lacrimal Surgery’ and ‘Atlas of Lacrimal Drainage Disorders’, and the ‘Video Atlas of Lacrimal Surgery’

Additional information

Funding

Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation