Hi everyone. I was wondering if anyone has ever experienced a censorship requirement for manuscript publication, or if you have ever read/come across an article where parts were explicitly "censored" or "redacted due to content?

Here is the story. I do research on relationships and sexuality. Part way through my PhD, with no data, I was feeling the pressure of publication (like so many of us do). So I put my dissertation research on hold and spent months writing a manuscript, with a unique methodology, that I was very proud of. I submitted it to a national journal. 6 months after submission I received the feedback from reviewers, who had revision requirements, but the comments were overwhelmingly positive, and both reviewers stated that the work was important and should be published.

I completed the revisions and resubmitted and I waited. 6 months after that I received word from the editors that the manuscript was accepted, but that they had censorship requirements. They stated they would only publish the work if sections of the paper (that had to do with sex, but which used medical terminology, not slang or derogatory language) were redacted for publication. The parts that they wanted censored, I felt, were key parts of the paper. In addition the purpose of the paper was to encourage more frank and open discussion about sexuality, so any censorship felt particularly antagonistic to my overall purpose.

After much agony I decided to pull the paper. This was particularly painful as it would have been my first first-authored paper, something I desperately need, and also because it spent so long under revision.

So now i've been asking anyone I can if they have ever heard of censorship of academic scholarship. I have yet to hear of a single report. I'd be really interested to know if anyone has ever encountered this and if you could point me to where you have seen it. Thanks!

I'm so sorry you felt the need to do that, must have been gutting.

No I have never heard of that. My research is on racism so I publish papers with plenty of colourful language, although that language is from the participants themselves, and not me.

It depends on the audience of the journal I guess-did you discuss it with your supervisor? If it had been me I would have been tempted to suck it up and do what they said to get published. I have often followed reviewers' suggestions even if I know in my heart I would never write like that!

Thanks for your reply. Yes I discussed with my supervisor extensively (she is an actively involved supervisor) and even cried in her office. It was a totally gutting decision. The paper was co-authored with someone who might normally be considered a "participant", but we co wrote it, and it was based on her story and experiences. The parts that they wanted to censor were direct quotes from her, and part of her story and experience. She was very insulted by these suggested edits (and I don't blame her). I was also insulted and just felt I couldn't publish the work with integrity with the suggested censorship.

I agree that I would normally take all the comments by reviewers. In this case though, this was not a suggestion form the reviewers. They both thought the frank discussion was an important aspect of the paper. It was the editors who imposed these requirements. I pulled the paper 2 months ago (and resubmitted elsewhere) but i'm still so disappointed by how it went down.

Given your field, is it a possibility that you've fallen foul of any new guidance issued after the Stubblefield case? I know the journal(s) that published that work got slated for publishing the facilitated communication work she did (regardless of the criminal charges she was found guilty of), so I wondered whether the relevant professional association has put new ethics guidance in place, that a cautious editor might think would impact on your article. Journal editors are responsible for checking the ethics of the research complies with disciplinary guidelines, even if not noted by referees, as they're the ones who carry the can if they publish something dodgy.

It is an interesting thought. Ethical issues were never raised with me, and I'm not sure where they would stem from. The relationship between my co-author and I is that we are friends and there is no question of her capacity. The issue of censorship was expressed to me as being for the comfortability of readers (even though I did include an introductory clause that the article would be about sex).