Publisher A received a concern suggesting that a coauthored paper published in one of their journals had previously been published by the complainant in an industry in-house journal (now disbanded). All three individuals had worked for the company which sponsored the in-house journal. The publisher asked for a contact at the company so that they could request information about their publication policies, but it appears the publications department was disbanded and all employees have left. The publisher has also tried to contact the authors of the paper published in their journal, but their email addresses bounce back.
Question for COPE Council
- What would be the appropriate course of action here? The publisher has been unable to verify if the original paper was really published or who owned copyright (possibly it was a work for hire document), and cannot get in touch with anyone who would know.
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
There are several aspects to this: legal and ethical, and perhaps marketing/exposure. The legal one is clearly the question of copyright ownership, and that can only be resolved by contact with the company’s lawyers. The publisher may be able to do some more work to find out details of the in-house journal. The company itself still exists and an approach could be made to corporate headquarters and its publicity relations department for further information. Even if the section producing the journal no longer exists, the PR department will have information on who they were and in what capacity they took part in the organisation. The communications office should have a copy of their publications. The publisher may also be able to trace the authors by using web searches, or by searching for them on Web of Science for other papers they may have published. Once located, then contacting them and their department or company would be appropriate.
The ethical issue is simpler: if the journal decides to proceed with the article, there should be some acknowledgement of its publication history. In short, there must be transparency. If the previous article had been published by a journal (and not just an internal bulletin) and had an active website whose article could be publicly and internationally available, then this is an official 'publication' of the content, and it is assumed that readers could find the article, read it, and may have a copy of that version. Even if that in-house journal has been disbanded, its content may be available somewhere in the web or on a server. In that case republishing the material in the same language is not permitted unless there is a logically acceptable reason (eg, the emergence of a serious public issue for which this paper provides useful information). Hence a reasonable action is that the journal does whatever it can to find out more but if all efforts fail, publishing a 'note of concern' might be suitable.
The marketing/exposure issue comes down to whether there is any point in publishing something that has been published before. Limited prior circulation may make that course worthwhile, but that is ultimately a commercial decision for the publisher to make.