Showing 1–25 of 551 results.

All of the cases COPE has discussed since its inception in 1997 have been entered into a searchable database. This database now contains over 500 cases together with the advice given by COPE. For more recent cases, the database also includes follow-up information and about outcome, and podcasts are available for most of the newer cases. We hope this database will provide a valuable resource for editors and those researching publication ethics.

You can search by classification or keyword using either the search field (top left) or by filtering your inquiry using the years and classifications/keywords listed below. A more detailed explanation of the classifications and keywords can be found on the COPE Case Taxonomy page.

We encourage members to look at the database before submitting a case to the Forum to see if similar cases have already been discussed and to see the format used for presenting cases. However, please note that advice from the COPE Forum meetings is specific to the particular case under consideration and may not necessarily be applicable to similar cases either past or future.

COPE accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused or occasioned as a result of advice given by them or by any COPE member. Advice given by COPE and its members is not given for the purposes of court proceedings within any jurisdiction and may not be cited or relied upon for this purpose.

  1. Institutional investigation of authorship dispute

  2. Author accused of stealing research and publishing under their name

  3. Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern

  4. Authorship dispute and possible unreported protocol amendment

  5. Author requests permission to publish review comments

    Case number: 
  6. Author of rejected paper publicly names and criticises peer reviewer

  7. What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction vs correction?

  8. Parental consent for participants

  9. Paper B plagiarised paper A: what to do if a journal does not respond?

  10. Low risk study with no ethics committee approval

  11. Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process

  12. Publication of expression of concern

  13. Data anonymity

  14. Publication of a manuscript on an external website after acceptance but prior to journal publication

  15. Multiple redundant submissions from the same author

  16. Disclosure and transparency issue

  17. Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process

    Case number: 
    Case Closed
  18. Attempt to supress legitimate scientific results

  19. Profusion of copied text passages

  20. Inability to contact an author to obtain permission to publish

  21. Requesting authorship after publication

  22. Author impersonating corresponding author without knowledge of coauthors

  23. Handling self-admissions of fraud

  24. Duplicate publication and removal of article

  25. Suspected image manipulation involving four journals