Scholarly communications harmed by covid-19

Dear Editor

The editorial by Bhopal and Munro [1] has generated substantial debate on this important topic. I read the rapid responses from Dr Berger [2,3] with interest and would like to offer a contrasting view on the call for retraction. Fortunately, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provide guidance regarding the retraction of scholarly articles. In the most recent version of ‘Retraction Guidelines’ [4], COPE clearly define the reasons for which editors should consider retracting a publication:
• “They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
• It constitutes plagiarism
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
• It contains material or data without authorisation for use
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (aka, conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers”

These retraction criteria appear to be echoed on the BMJ website which states: "Retractions are considered by journal editors in cases of evidence of unreliable data or findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and unethical research" [5].

Considering this guidance, I can see no reason why the BMJ should be expected to retract an editorial based on a subjective assessment of an author's character, even if this assessment is based on allegations of hypocrisy relating to the subject matter of the editorial. In my view, retracting an article on these grounds risks engaging in a sort of scholarly 'cancel culture'.

Dr Berger states: "Munro and Bhopal’s credibility in this arena is shot" [3]. Such an uncompromising view of the authors credibility, with regards to discussing the nuances of scholarly communication, seems somewhat severe and polarising. Also, does Dr Berger imply that Munro and Bhopal can no longer engage in discussion/offer recommendations regarding scholarly communication in peer-reviewed journals such as the BMJ? If not, when are Munro and Bhopal permitted to engage in such conversations in the published literature? In 5 years’ time? Or after a specific amount of repenting for previous transgressions?

I think we need to be very clear regarding what constitutes a valid reason for retracting a published manuscript; to the best of my knowledge, it does not appear to be appropriate in this case.

References:
1. Bhopal R, Munro APS. Scholarly communications harmed by covid-19. BMJ. 2021 Mar 22;372:n742. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n742
2. Berger D. Re: Scholarly communications harmed by covid-19. 25 March 2021. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n742/rr-1
3. Berger D. Munro and Bhopal's editorial must now be retracted. 29 March 2021. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n742/rr-5
4. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Council. COPE Retraction guidelines — English. Version 2: November 2019. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
5. The BMJ. Corrections and retractions. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-submission/corre...

Dear Editor,

The stress-testing of policy and experts through social media critique has been of vital importance during the pandemic and there are important and legitimate reflections to be made on this topic. However, despite the admission of Munro’s hypocrisy, an admission precipitated by an outcry, rather than by any internal crisis of conscience, these authors are still not the right people to make them. In particular, there are nuanced reflections to be made about the role of “politeness” in professional discourse which their conduct marks them as unfit to make.

Too often in this pandemic, reasoned dissent in social media has been met by accusations of “disrespect”, “professional discourtesy” or “bullying” by squadrons of tone police whose real purpose is to mute the critical message, rather than to maintain genteel standards of discourse.

In the Taoist hierarchy of moral values, kindness sits above justice, which itself sits above ritual, the lowest category, and the one in which “politeness” is to be found. It is not the highest virtue to be polite to people who you believe are doing serious harm through their negligence or incompetence. [1] While politeness is not to be discarded out of hand, neither should it take precedence over kindness to one’s fellow beings by attempting to protect them. If harsh words or actions are necessary to prevent harm, if the actions of some have moved so far beyond the moral sphere as to no longer be worthy of the etiquette of the salon, then so be it. The duty of the moral being is to do whatever it takes to do the right thing to prevent the world burning, not to be polite at all costs to the arsonists as they continue to set fires.

Munro and Bhopal’s credibility in this arena is shot. They should now do the graceful thing and retract their editorial. If they will not do so, then the Editor should do it for them.

Yours sincerely,

Dr David Berger

1. Berger, D. Up the line to death: covid-19 has revealed a mortal betrayal of the world’s healthcare workers
BMJ Opinion Jan 29 2021

Dear Editor

We thank Dr David Berger for his apt yet delicately phrased observation that one of the authors (Munro) might not have met the very high standards in scientific discourse on the COVID-19 pandemic that our editorial recommends (https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n742/rr-1).[1]

On reflection upon the feedback, which has also come from other quarters, and the learning from the process of writing the editorial, we agree that the standards we set in the editorial are very high, and Dr Munro admits he has not always lived up to them during his engagement in social media. Both authors are committed to working harder to meet our own high expectations in the future.

This is a time for all of us, including the authors, to reflect on our previous communication styles and how we can improve. We are human beings subject to the same difficult emotions and internal conflicts. It is important now that we as a community recognise the harms that past incivility has caused, and ensure that as a scientific community we endeavour to make our future engagements in the debate just as impassioned, but based on mutual respect and understanding. We thank our colleagues for providing candid, thoughtful yet critical feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Alasdair Munro
Raj Bhopal

1. Bhopal R, Munro APS. Scholarly communications harmed by covid-19. 2021;372:n742. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n742 %J BMJ

Dear Editor,

It is essential to put on record the following two Twitter threads, which pertain to Munro's conduct on Twitter during the pandemic:

https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1374423424668372996

https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1374700900950810624

I have been active on Twitter and passionate about the lack of protections accorded healthcare workers and others throughout the pandemic. When it is a matter of life and death for many thousands of people, millions even, I argue that passion from engaged commentators is both understandable and to be expected.

In this response I do not try to specify what the standards of discourse should be and I claim no moral high ground for myself in social media discourse. However, those such as Munro, who apparently do, should be circumspect before trying to stake that claim, given that their own interactions are on public record.

Yours sincerely,

Dr David Berger