Author wants to withdraw or insist on re-reviewing at proof stage of publication I am editing a small scholarly journal published by a learned society. One of our authors, after his manuscript was finally accepted for publication and he had signed and returned the publishing agreement (with copyright assignment), is trying to negotiate after receiving the first proof version. 

He insists on adding new content and a new reference to the main text of the article, which I, as editor, will not allow. He is offering to resubmit the manuscript with the new content included, and to wait for the results of a completely new peer review. He is very persistent about including the new content which, I think, has no impact at all on the overall quality or on the conclusions of the paper.  The reference is a fresh (2015) self-reference, so I assume that he simply wants to increase the visibility of that other paper.

One of my main problem with the new reference (and the related content) is being to one of the author's own paper published in a predatory open access journal. The publisher is listed on Beall's list. When I pointed at it, he said that his paper was subjected to valid and rigorous peer review and other people's bad experience have nothing to do with the academic validity of that specific paper. I disagree, and as I am responsible for our published content I feel adding the new reference is a risk to our journal's reputation.

It would be a waste of our journal’s resources to disregard that we have the copyright of a manuscript, which we accepted for publication after rigorous peer review. We do not feel that we should comply with what the author wants, and we feel that we should publish the paper even if the author will not approve the final proof. 

What do you think about this situation? I have a few other options, namely to reject the paper altogether and to go on with the new round of reviews. Both choices would make me feel being strongarmed. Any advice would be appreciated.
While you might be in the legal right, I think trying to publish when the author wants to withdraw is likely to be more trouble than it is worth for a small society journal.  You probably don't have the resources to get into a protracted battle if the author decides to be really problematic (e.g., a lawsuit).

As I see it, there are three reasonable approaches at this point, in increasing levels of assertiveness on your part:


If the new content isn't very big (e.g., a paragraph or two and the reference), just let it be; just make the change at the proof stage and let it stop being your problem.  If it really does make little difference to the paper, as you say, then this is a reasonable triage to do to get this author out of your hair.
Reject the paper and send it through a new round of peer review.  It's not too bad a waste of resources, particularly if you use the same reviewers, who will be able to just look at the new version in terms of its differences from the old.
Offer the author the choice between a final rejection (no resubmission will be reconsidered) and publishing as-is.


Which you choose probably should be guided by just how willing you are to invest your time and reputation into a battle with this author.  Some people are known and repeat-offending bullies, and it's definitely worth standing up to them.  Other times, you've got a person who is normally reasonable and who has just gotten a particular fixation on this particular issue and it's worth accommodating them one this one occasion.  If you do decide to accommodate the author, however, you need to make it very clear that this is an unusual exception and you will be holding them to much stricter guidelines in the future.