An academic journal asked the author to exclude references or anonymise sources that are potentially damaging to the reputation of a commercial company. While there are guidelines for dealing with grey literature in research, it seems that some grey literature (company's own reports) are accepted, while other (e.g. critical reports by NGO's, social media, etc.) need to be excluded.
As an example, let's say that an article contained some criticism of a large soft drink company. The editor wrote to the author:
"...about other sources using real names, that can be allowable, but, in order to name companies in a paper, the language 1) must not be potentially damaging to the reputation of a company) and 2) the conclusions drawn (if negative) must be based on publicly available data (e.g., taken from their annual reports), with no opinion or supposition. Academic articles need to be much more careful than other forms of reporting (like social media at the other extreme), because they are held in high regard and can be cited and used in legal proceedings".
Does this imply that data reported should be based on companies self-reports, not on outside criticism? Is this 'right' of a publisher to do or is this a kind of censorship that should not be allowed in academia?
any research must be ethically approved , then results will be accepted , because policy makers and law will protect the researchers.
Editors are now erring on the side of caution following the request by a court to unmask peer reviewers in case brought by CrossFit. In my area of study, food and environmental contamination masking brand names or companies is often done to avoid any legal ramifications. For example, when phthalates were detected in bottled water, researchers who performed the studies didn't have to disclose the name of the brands they studied.
This brings me to your next question, should researchers only communicate what is in annual reports? Using the example of phthalates in bottled water, it is obvious that none of the companies would report about contaminants in their products. In my research area, and probably other areas too, annual reports are a weak source of data. However, one could critique the annual reports rather than use them as a primary source of data.
To answer your question, requesting anonymity might be essential due to the legal ramifications of the study the journal might incur. Secondly, using annual reports might not be expedient as a primary source of information.
You can find more on the CrossFit saga I referenced here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/unusual-move-judge-grants-crossfits-request-unmask-anonymous-peer-reviewers
What concerns me the most is how 'scientific' or 'objective' a research can be when (quoting from the same communication) "the references in the grey literature should be anonymised" - thus removing references and links with company name - when it comes to critical information (e.g. journal/newspaper reporting on protests, NGO communication, or social media sources that bring greenwashing or abuses of power into light) - while 'company websites' themselves (which indeed praise own products) are apparently good to use without anonymising.
Some people are fake in their research works and publishing their research works by donation to the journals. These published references are harmful and damaging to the scientific world. If the editor asks to remove any reference, it means he knows about the originality of this publication. In that sense, the quality and reputation of the journal is deserved well.
The editor is responsible for shaping the paper to be published to attract international readership. Its likely it would spark fire and trigger legal actions, its a step in the right direction to take off those references.
The whole question is related to the state of rights of the subject, the object and what is done. Therefore, for an editor of a scientific journal of reputation, there is no way to go out of the legal guidelines. But, this means that the editor, the authors as well as the companies have their rights too.
It is not ethical, it is not respectful, for the author and the editor.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals