Cases search

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 review board approval needed?

  2. Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company

  3. Fraud or sloppiness in a submitted manuscript
    Audio

  4. A case with no independent institution to investigate
    Audio

  5. Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality
    Audio

  6. Image manipulation as a general practice

    Case number: 
    14-03
    Year: 
    2014
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  7. Coauthor fails to respond to request to confirm coauthorship

    Case number: 
    14-02
    Year: 
    2014
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  8. Potential fabrication of data in primary studies included in a meta-analysis accepted for publication

  9. Online posting of confidential draft by peer reviewer

    Case number: 
    13-15
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  10. Identifying patient information published in a figure

    Case number: 
    13-19
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  11. Claim of plagiarism in published article

    Case number: 
    13-18
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  12. Misattributed authorship and unauthorized use of data

    Case number: 
    13-17
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  13. Two reviewer reports contain a significant amount of verbatim textual overlap

    Case number: 
    13-16
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  14. Ethical concerns about a study involving human subjects

    Case number: 
    13-14
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  15. A case of plagiarism?

    Case number: 
    13-13
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  16. Omitted author

    Case number: 
    13-12
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  17. A case of salami slicing

    Case number: 
    13-11
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  18. Authorship dispute

    Case number: 
    13-10
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  19. Retraction update?

    Case number: 
    13-09
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  20. Unusually frequent submission of articles by a single author

    Case number: 
    13-08
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  21. New claim to authorship of published paper

    Case number: 
    13-07
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  22. Ethical obligation to find reviewers

    Case number: 
    13-06
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  23. Editor as author of a paper

    Case number: 
    13-05
    Year: 
    2013
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  24. Findings of a published trial called into question by a subsequent audit of trial conduct

  25. Ethical concerns and the validity of documentation supplied by the authors

Pages