Ever been asked to remove a reference for libel concerns? These authors have

Last month, Nature Ecology & Evolution published a series of responses to a previous article recommending essential reading for all ecologists. In one response, the authors argue that the list is highly biased in favor of white male authors, and raises the problem of bullying and harassment in academia. But the letter is missing one key reference from its original submission: To a recent news story in Science reporting “disturbing” sexual harassment allegations against a prominent field researcher.

Why is the reference missing?

Because the editor at Nature Ecology & Evolution asked the authors to take it out, citing concerns about libel.

Here’s the note the authors received on their original submission:

I’m afraid we need to ask you to remove ref 3. We planned to cite this in our recent editorial on harassment but were advised to remove it by our legal team. We still referred to the case, using carefully checked legal phrasing, but we couldn’t cite the actual article. This has to do with differences in libel laws between US and UK, and the fact that the Science article is published in the US whereas our articles are published in the UK.

Reference 3 refers to this October 6 news article published by Science, entitled “Disturbing allegations of sexual harassment in Antarctica leveled at noted scientist.”  (Note: We have a partnership with Science, in which we contribute in-depth stories to their news section.)

First author of the letter, Julia Baum at the University of Victoria in Canada, confirmed to us that she was asked to remove the reference, and the language of the request, but declined to comment further.

Here is an excerpt from Baum and Martin’s letter:

Rather than developing a representative and inspiring list of papers for young ecologists, Courchamp & Bradshaw have presented a highly gender and racially biased list in which 97 of 100 selected articles are first-authored by white men. Only two articles are led by women (Camille Parmesan and Mary Power); these are ranked last.

A spokesperson for Nature told us:

We took a precautionary approach when it came to this comment and editorial, given that we are subject to UK libel laws which are, as we stated, different from US laws.  We maintain that both the editorial and comment pieces provided extensive and robust discussion of the issues, the removal of the reference notwithstanding, and we are committed to ensuring that we rigorously represent the views of the academic community in our journal.

Nature is certainly familiar with UK libel laws: In 2012, the journal won a years-long libel lawsuit launched by a journal editor who took issue with a 2008 Nature news story.

But should legal concerns prevent researchers from citing references from legitimate sources?

Other ecologists react

We consulted the authors of the other letters published alongside Baum and Martin’s, to see what they thought about the journal’s request to remove the reference..

Gregory Gilbert of the University of California, Santa Cruz, told us he wasn’t particularly concerned, saying that this request from a Nature editor was “not necessarily indicative of a larger issue:”

I take as well grounded the Nature E&E editor’s comment that this article has issues for publication because of differences in libel law between the US and the UK.  I did not see this in any way as diminishing the point made by Baum and Martin, since citation #4 was actually better support for their statement than #3.  #3 was really focused on one particular person as an example, whereas the statement was for broader patterns.  I did find it curious –  I had never encountered that as a reason — but then I’ve never tried to cite such an accusatory new piece in anything I have written.

He added:

I would be concerned if in peer-reviewed scientific publications there was legal scrutiny about which scientific publications could be cited, if they appropriately related to the point being made and were accurately represented.  However, these letters to the editor are not peer-reviewed and not scientific publications — they are letters to the editor.

Gilbert’s letter, published alongside Baum and Martin’s, also commented on the “dramatic gender imbalance” present in the list of 100 recommended readings in ecology.

Emilio Bruna of the University of Florida, who wrote a letter arguing the reliance on editorial board members to nominate must-read articles may have skewed the results by nationality and gender, echoed Gilbert’s sentiments:

I’m not especially concerned that this is  academic censorship.  I know that the UK has more stringent libel laws. My guess at the time was that as “correspondence to the Editor” they legally fall under a different category than peer-reviewed research papers, requiring more care regarding potential liability. If so, the Editors probably could have done a better job explaining this to assuage any fears. Had a similar request been made in a research article, then I would be concerned.

What do you think? Tell us in our poll, below.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here. If you have comments or feedback, you can reach us at [email protected].