Phd vs updating knowledge
An article was submitted by corresponding author (CA) on 19 December 2011.After several revisions the article was accepted for publication on 23 March 2012. At the time of submission, CA was a Ph D student at a research centre (X).Some suggested there was a lack of mentorship and failure of supervision—what was the Ph D supervisor doing?Most agreed that there were no grounds for retraction.If the editor can obtain signed consent from all of the authors, then he could consider retraction.Others suggested that the editor should do nothing.He stated that he had asked co-author A for permission to submit the article but “had no answer for one year”.
One step in this solution would be submission of the article to the ‘correct’ journal (journal B) by co-author A.However, the published article itself presents sound science.Furthermore, the legal issue between CA and research centre X needs to be separated from the case for retraction of a scientifically correct article.On 19 December 2012, the publisher again asked CA the following points:— Did you get the approval of the other co-authors before you submitted the article? — Co-author A said that she was away from work for one year of maternity leave.
Were you aware of this when submitting the article?(A minor mistake in the published article that co-author A found in the meantime could be corrected by an erratum.) On 20 December 2012, the publisher informed CA, co-author A and LCO that any contractual obligations between them and centre X will not be part of this issue.