Elsevier believes however that there may be more useful and practical ways of identifying which publication is the article of record sup witches doormat . There is nothing wrong with negotiating with the other publisher/journal concerning these matters,
sup witches doormat
to a decision made by the editor, but the Elsevier policy is to rely on the editor’s decision and to actively support it. We expect the editor to make an informed and considered view and decision sup witches doormat about what is more likely to be true, and we will then do whatever is required to implement the editor’s recommended sanction or other recommendation. If there are legalistic dimensions , we will involve the Elsevier Legal Department. There may be instances as well where legal review will be useful (e.g. complex competing factual narratives), and our lawyers are prepared to assist. Elsevier has a range of sanctions in our policies , ranked in order of severity, which notes that the most serious sanction is some form of “banning” decision by the editor.
We believe however that the seriousness of the publication of a corrective notice is often under-appreciated. The publication and dissemination of the corrective notice, in whatever form, that identifies that misconduct has taken place and generally identifies who the acting party was in the misconduct, is a very significant act. Researchers exist and work in a community, and the community’s awareness of an ethical problem committed by a particular researcher is a very serious matter. Elsevier supports the efforts made by the STM trade association to establish common guidelines and agreements among publishers for retractions and removals . Those guidelines note that the date of the publishing or copyright agreement should govern, meaning whichever journal has the earliest formal agreement should be considered the journal where the “article of record” was published, and other duplicate publications should be retracted.