Features

There is growing awareness that issues that fall under the so-called editorial prerogative and hence could not formerly be discussed can well be questioned now. Authors all over the world—even a few in India—are now conscious that there can and should be means of redress for editorial high-handedness or misconduct. Such an attitude on the part of authors is a welcome and encouraging sign and should go a long way toward ensuring the health of science and scientific communication. It was therefore a pleasant surprise when a researcher in a Delhi medical college contacted me recently to discuss a serious ethical problem in the publication of one of his papers. He was essentially question-ing the prerogative of the editor to turn down the collective request of the authors of a published research paper to rectify an omission in authorship of the paper. In turning down the request, the editor had stated that ICMJE guidelines do not permit such a change in authorship!1 Why should we be concerned about such issues? Throughout the world, there are few authors who do not have a grouse, often a legitimate one, about journal edi-tors. Authors learn to put up with delays most of the time and with editors ’ rude-ness and misbehavior occasionally. Some editors do not think twice before announc-ing that they will not reconsider papers once rejected, because they cannot afford to waste time on such manuscripts. Even good papers, especially from developed countries, do not receive fair treatment in editorial offices. There are also allegations of editors riding roughshod over com-plaints of authors. Although rare, there is clear evidence that serious editorial mis-conduct does occur.2 Some editors, mostly in the United States and the United Kingdom, have recently become aware of the need to be more sensitive to the critical author-edi-tor relationship. Thanks to editorials and articles published in such journals as The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, and th