On 2016 Sep 16, Virginia Barbour commented:

As the Chair of COPE, I am writing to respond to the recent remarks of Dr. Horton with respect to the role and actions of COPE that he commented on in his Offline column1 highlighting the statin review by Professor Collins and colleagues, both of which were published in the issue of the 10th September. I also submitted this letter to the Lancet directly on 12th September.

COPE is an international interdisciplinary organisation, not just a UK one, whose remit is the provision of education and advice to members in questions related to publication ethics. We do have a process whereby an individual can bring to our attention complaints about journal processes, but we cannot interfere in editorial decisions and nor can we investigate the underlying issues of a complaint as we have neither the resources nor, more importantly, the appropriate level of subject–specific expertise. 

Dr Horton states that “COPE declined to act further”. This is incorrect. COPE did request details of processes at the BMJ, in accordance with our remit (http://publicationethics.org/contact-us). The guidance issued from COPE's review (I was not part of this final part of the process, having recused myself during the process because of the development of a potential conflict of interest) offered constructive criticism about how the BMJ had managed the peer review process. The BMJ had already addressed those issues following their own independent review and COPE was satisfied with the procedural changes that were implemented. 

As it is certainly not appropriate for COPE to make any specific judgment about effects on public health, COPE also recommended that Professor Collins and colleagues engaged in open dialogue on the specific issues in the medical literature. We note this has now happened with the publication of their review in The Lancet. 

Putting the correction of Dr Horton's record of events to one side, and instead looking for useful lessons, COPE would be interested in discussing Dr Horton's suggestion for an independent tribunal. It seems reasonable to assume that this tribunal would need public-funding and the ability to apply sanctions and, to a degree, become a regulator for the research community. This is not COPE's remit, but we would be interested in being part of the discussion on such an approach.

Virginia Barbour Chair, COPE

Competing interest. I'm the Chair of COPE. My decision to recuse myself from handling this issue midway through was because a colleague at PLOS (where I worked when the issue was brought to COPE) joined the BMJ.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) cope_chair@publicationethics.org www.publicationethics.org

On 2016 Sep 16, Virginia Barbour commented:

As the Chair of COPE, I am writing to respond to the recent remarks of Dr. Horton with respect to the role and actions of COPE that he commented on in his Offline column1 highlighting the statin review by Professor Collins and colleagues, both of which were published in the issue of the 10th September. I also submitted this letter to the Lancet directly on 12th September.

COPE is an international interdisciplinary organisation, not just a UK one, whose remit is the provision of education and advice to members in questions related to publication ethics. We do have a process whereby an individual can bring to our attention complaints about journal processes, but we cannot interfere in editorial decisions and nor can we investigate the underlying issues of a complaint as we have neither the resources nor, more importantly, the appropriate level of subject–specific expertise. 

Dr Horton states that “COPE declined to act further”. This is incorrect. COPE did request details of processes at the BMJ, in accordance with our remit (http://publicationethics.org/contact-us). The guidance issued from COPE's review (I was not part of this final part of the process, having recused myself during the process because of the development of a potential conflict of interest) offered constructive criticism about how the BMJ had managed the peer review process. The BMJ had already addressed those issues following their own independent review and COPE was satisfied with the procedural changes that were implemented. 

As it is certainly not appropriate for COPE to make any specific judgment about effects on public health, COPE also recommended that Professor Collins and colleagues engaged in open dialogue on the specific issues in the medical literature. We note this has now happened with the publication of their review in The Lancet. 

Putting the correction of Dr Horton's record of events to one side, and instead looking for useful lessons, COPE would be interested in discussing Dr Horton's suggestion for an independent tribunal. It seems reasonable to assume that this tribunal would need public-funding and the ability to apply sanctions and, to a degree, become a regulator for the research community. This is not COPE's remit, but we would be interested in being part of the discussion on such an approach.

Virginia Barbour Chair, COPE

Competing interest. I'm the Chair of COPE. My decision to recuse myself from handling this issue midway through was because a colleague at PLOS (where I worked when the issue was brought to COPE) joined the BMJ.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) cope_chair@publicationethics.org www.publicationethics.org