Mishandling of scientifically flawed articles on radiation exposure, retracted for ethical reason, undermines the scientific issues pointed out by Letters to the Editor

Abstract

We discuss the editorial handling of two papers that were published in and then retracted from the Journal of Radiological Protection (JRP). The papers dealt with radiation exposure in Date City, and were retracted because “ethically inappropriate data were used”. Before retraction, four Letters to the Editor pointing out scientific issues in the papers had been submitted to JRP. The Letters were all accepted or provisionally accepted through peer review. Nevertheless, JRP later refused to publish them. We examine the handling by JRP of the Letters, and show that it led to a cover-up of the grave issues in the papers and in handling them, which went far beyond the use of unconsented data. By its actions in this case, JRP has established a dangerous precedent that unscientific, unfounded and erroneous claims can remain unacknowledged. We propose some countermeasures to prevent such abuse of editorial power by academic journals.