A case report was published in our journal after being approved by a peer reviewer and subjected to a technical review. The first author was a post-graduate trainee attached to the department of pathology of a prestigious national institute. A month later we received an email from a resident working at a specialist department of another institute claiming that the patient belonged to them and as the case appeared to be unique and due to the non-availability of some specific diagnostic services, the patient was referred to the pathology laboratory of this larger facility. The pathologists in this facility asked the patient for all previous medical reports, stating that without these the test results could not be handed out. After procuring all the necessary information, the postgraduate trainee of the pathology lab with five colleagues as coauthors wrote and submitted the case report to our journal where it was published.
A letter of concern was sent to the authors who had published the case in our journal. The explanation given was as follows:
The case was investigated for a rare disorder in their laboratory, belonging to a tertiary care facility. The pathologist could not have provided a final diagnosis without the previous investigations results therefore the patient was asked to bring them. Because it was a rare disorder the authors felt obliged to publish it for the benefit of the medical community. The present authors did not know that they should have sought permission from the treating physicians or included them as coauthors. The authors currently listed are all from the pathology laboratory and are all included in accordance with the ICMJE guidelines.
Questions for the Forum:
- Who are the ‘real’ authors?
- The case ethically belonged to the resident from the medical facility. It was published without their knowledge and consent. What steps should be taken to rectify the injustice done?
- Is it excusable to claim ignorance about the ownership of the case, as the current authors are doing?
This is essentially an authorship issue which is beyond the ability of the journal to adjudicate. Several Forum attendees reported similar cases they had dealt with, and recommended contacting the authors’ institution to adjudicate the contested ownership. Additionally, the editor could consider informing the authors that it is their responsibility to follow up with the institution and that the journal will not take further action until they receive a judgement. In the meantime an expression of concern which outlines the situation would be a way to inform readers that there is a potential issue especially if the situation might take some time to resolve.
Ultimately, if the authors do not have ownership of the case they cannot publish it as theirs. In that case a retraction may be appropriate, or even a full removal with a notice to explain that the article had been published without the consent of the data owner.