Commercial journals make money by publishing scientists’ work. To keep their circulation and impact factor high, they have to lure the manuscripts that effect a ‘paradigm shift’.
Contrary to the common fallacy that the high-profile journals are brutally objective in manuscript selection, their editors give plenty of unnecessary opportunities to the authors to resubmit their shoddy work. In principle they send the letter that the manuscript is rejected but they would consider it as a new submission if the reviewers’ concerns are addressed. In practice, they routinely override some valid criticism and concerns of the reviewers to publish the paper.
If an editor overrides the reviewers’ concerns and the paper is later retracted, what should be done? I have to find out how the board of editors acts under these circumstances. As far as I know, there are no serious consequences for the lapse of editorial judgement.
EMBO Journal has adopted a policy of publishing the review proceedings should the authors agree to it. Such policy should be embraced by every decent scientific journal because it affirms that the readers are intelligent scientists who will understand the limitations of the research work.
As for the editorial veto of the reviewers’ concern that leads to retraction of a paper, some accountability is expected not only for the commercial success of the journal but because there is also tax-payers’ money involved. I would say, ‘Fire the editor’.