- News
In the news: March 2018 Digest
…PNAS proposes changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. Ombudsman's Reports
…the COPE Ombudsman (Download PDF, 26kb, uploaded 22 June 2010). Lessons from a case of overlapping publications Download the report on the case referred to the COPE Ombudsman (- Event
COPE Forum: March 2023
…%3ESubmit%20a%20case%26nbsp%3B%3C%2Fa%3E%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%0A%3Cp%3EThe%20deadline%20to%20submit%20a%20case%20for%20this%20Forum%26nbsp%3Bis%3A%20Thursday%2024%20November%202022.%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%0A%2D%2D%3E--> Forum agenda On Thursday 23 March 2023 the COPE Forum will be held at 15:00-16:30pm (GMT / UTC) 1. Update on COPE activities Update on COPE activities by the Chair. - Case
Possible plagiarism in a cross over, double blind placebo controlled study
A paper was received which described a double blind cross over study investigating the effect of a drug in pruritus as a result of chronic cholestasis. Both reviewers recommended rejection on the grounds that the information contained in the paper was not new. Both cited a study published four years earlier in a high impact factor journal which essentially dealt with the same question. One of t… - Case
The declared and the undeclared competing interests
An editorial was published on a particular subject in which the author’s competing interests were declared. He had given evidence on behalf of patients making a claim against a manufacturer. Three people then separately pointed out that we had already published a commentary on the same subject in which there had been no declaration of competing interest for the author. The three people all said… - News
Standards in Authorship webinar summary
…48% of attendees discuss authorship before a project begins, with 26% never discussing authorship and 26% always raising it. only 48% of attendees discuss authorship before a project begins, with 26% never discussing authorship and 26% always raising it - Case
Partial disclosure of redundancy?
A reviewer detected that a paper received for review was almost identical to a paper published by the same group three years earlier in a journal of a different specialty. The paper concerned clinical and investigative aspects of a disease that crossed two specialties. Although the authors had included their previous paper in the reference list, the title of the paper had been changed from that… Annual Trustees Reports and Financial Statements
…href="/sites/default/files/u7140/signed_2020_financial_statements_1988446_2.pdf">Trustees report and financial statements 2019 Trustees report and financial statements Membership survey report 2018 Trustees report and financial…- Event
COPE Peer Review Workshop, pre-Munin Conference, Norway, 2019
…Breivika. In connection with the Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing, on November 26 there will be a workshop about the standards of peer review from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The target group for the workshop is journal editors. We also welcome administrative staff involved in technical support for… - Event
COPE Forum: Wednesday 9 June 2021
…publishers in dealing with complaints from whistleblowers", will be followed by discussion and advice among attendees on members' cases submitted in advance. … - News
Post-publication discussions and corrections focus
…Expressions of Concern when conclusive evidence is not available but the editors believe readers should be aware of potential concerns. Expressions of Concern are often used if a decision will not be reached for a considerable amount of time. More thoughts on Expressions of Concern can be found in the - Event
Workshop: Introduction to publication ethics
…href="https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_C0ovpFo_Sp2BeULr2AyfBA#/registration">REGISTER TODAY --> Introduction to publication ethics Monday 26 February 2024, 12:00-13:30 GMT / UTC This workshop is an introduction to the principles of publication ethics and how to use the guidance and tools available to embed publication ethics in a journal's daily practice. Trevor Lane and Anubhav Pradhan review the Ethics Toolkit and other COPE resources,… - Case
Reprimanded author plagiarizes again
A reviewer, R1, brought to our attention several suspected cases of plagiarism in paper A1, submitted by authors A. The main concerns were:— large parts of paper A1 resembled paper B submitted by a different group of authors B, with one of the most major changes being a change in the observation day;— large parts of a section were taken from paper C by author C, including an… - Case
Wrong article abstract published: corrigendum or retraction and republication?
An author published an article in journal A. At the proofreading stage they were asked by the publisher to reduce the number of words in the abstract. After publication, the author indicated that they had inadvertently included the wrong abstract in the proofreading correction step, supplying one which belonged to another article they had authored. The article is now published with the wrong ab… Membership subscription fees
… 51 to 100 £4,248 26 to 50 £2,390 11 to 25 £1,328 5 to 10 £584 Continuous publications Publishing companies that wish to join COPE but do not have a discrete journal product published in intervals…- News
In the news: October 2018 Digest
…/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/" target="_blank">https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ Cochrane Collaboration News The Cochrane Collaboration is a 26 year old organization that produces systematic reviews in biomedicine. In mid-September 2018 at the group’s annual meeting, the board voted… - Case
Palestinian refugee conditions
A journal received a simple, cross-sectional survey of Palestinian refugees. The author was a Palestinian, employed by a charity and undertaking research based at a university overseas. The study contained new data and within the constraints of a cross-sectional survey seemed methodologically sound. The paper was sent to two peer reviewers with expertise in the area, experience in international… - Case
Publication of private data
An article was submitted for publication. This was a survey of research activity in a specialist area and included, among other things, research funding amounts from each institution. This led to a sort of 'league table'. The information was provided by the responding director of the specialty area or head of school/research group of each institution. The cover letter stated this is for researc… - Case
Potential peer reviewer misconduct
A journal received the recommendation of a peer reviewer which expressed doubts about the validity of some of the data in an article. The editor-in-chief got in touch directly with the author and mediated to have the data validated by an outside contributor. The authors responded by providing data validation by a colleague, who is now becoming a potential coauthor. The initial data were… - Discussion documents
How should editors respond to plagiarism? April 2011
…Contents Aims and scope Background Introduction Types of plagiarism 2.1 Extent 2.2 Originality of copied material 2.3 Position / context 2.4 Referencing / attribution 2.5 Intention 2.6 Author seniority 2.7 Language Detecting and responding to plagiarism Screening for plagiarism Defining…