Filter by content type

Filter by topic

Search results for '波兰信用交易程序源码教程【TG电报:@EK7676】平台包网搭建波兰信用交易程序源码教程【TG电报:@EK7676】平台包网搭建g2orS8V8SS'

Showing 21–40 of 1086 results
  • Code of conduct for COPE meetings and events

    …for all participants. COPE does not tolerate harassment in any form and requires all participants to abide by the Code of Conduct for meetings and events. COPE Trustees, Council Members, or staff members will enforce this code of conduct throughout all COPE events (whether in person or online) and we expect cooperation from all participants to help ensure a safe environment for everybody.
  • Case

    Possible self-plagiarism and/or prior publication

    …possibly redundant/duplicate publication according to the COPE Case Taxonomy (http://publicationethics.org/cope-case-taxonomy). The two COPE case taxonomy areas we refer to in this case are:o ‘Self-plagiarism’ (submitted article)—reusing one’s own previous writing without being transparent about this or appropriately referencing/quoting…
  • Endorsement policy

    …This policy describes the different types of endorsements COPE may agree to support, what COPE will not endorse, and how to make a request for endorsement. COPE is from time to time asked to endorse or support documents, policies or events produced by external organisations. This may include adding the COPE name or logo to a document or website,…
  • Forum discussion topics

    COPE Forum 9 December 2015: COPE consultation/guidance document on handling competing interests

    Introduction Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests (COIs)) are ubiquitous. One definition is as follows “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence…
  • Event

    JOR/ORS Workshop on Preprint Servers: Public Access and Peer-Review

    Preprint servers are places where manuscripts and data can be made public on the internet. These sites are not peer-reviewed, but often stimulate discussion of the posted studies. This workshop will analyse the pro and cons of using preprint servers, review the policies of publishers and journals, and invite a lively discussion on the role of this new public access to data.…
  • Case

    Wrong article abstract published: corrigendum or retraction and republication?

    …abstract. The author is asking for a retraction and republication. Question for COPE Council Should the journal issue a corrigendum or retraction and republication?  …
  • Case

    Plagiarism or redundant publication?

    A manuscript was submitted with a covering letter clearly stating the originality and unpublished nature of the work. The authors stated that the results had already been orally presented at a meeting the previous year. Before sending the manuscript for review the editors discovered that the manuscript contained 60% of the Materials and Methods text and 90% of the Results section of a previousl…
  • Case

    Is it unethical to reject unregistered (or late-registered) trials?

    …trials started after July 2005, we require registration to have been done before enrolment of the first participant. In recent years we have tried to enforce this policy strictly and have rejected many papers reporting trial results where the trial was not registered in line with our policy. A very quick audit reveals about 20 or so studies which have been rejected in the past year or so due to…
  • Case

    Retraction or correction?

    …redundant publication or involve the original handling (academic) editor and the editor-in-chief. In the latter case, I would most likely ask Dr X's institute to verify the results based on the documentation provided by Dr X, and then ask the the editor and editor-in-chief for their opinions. If the editor and editor-in-chief agree that the data are still sound, then we would issue a correction.…
  • Case

    Where should journals escalate serious concerns about an institution or institutional review board?

    A publisher received a submission to one of their journals that raised ethical concerns. The concerns were related to potential harm or undue risk for participants who may be vulnerable. The publisher reviewed the ethics approval statement, and the authors had met the journal’s policy requirements by prospectively obtaining ethics approval from their institution before beginning the…
  • Member Registration Form

    Click on the appropriate membership type below: Journal Member If you are the Editor or Publisher of a peer-reviewed, academic journal(s) that publish in discrete intervals in print and/or online, select Journal Member. Continuous…
  • Event

    The 8th IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics.

    The IEEE DSAA’2021 Industry track aims to highlight the challenges of putting together production-grade software solutions to different business verticals based on data science. Our goal is to promote the debate, the exchange of ideas and/or collaborations on how to add business value to society through data science.  The focus of this track is to put forward business realizations…
  • Case

    Studies where there is no research ethics committee, or where committees disagree as to the need for approval

    The editor of this journal, in common with other journals, requires that, where appropriate, studies published should have been approved by the relevant ethics committee. In some cases researchers have reported to the editor that they have found no committee willing to accept competence, or that different committees are taking different lines on which studies require approval. As an…
  • Case

    No ethics approval or informed consent?

    The committee were in agreement that the editorial team had a moral responsibility to take further action as there is a possibility that patients may be put at risk. The advice was that the editor should write to the ethics committee and/or the medical board to determine if approval had been obtained and whether it was obtained retrospectively. The editor should write to all of the authors…
  • Text Recycling: Forum discussion topic March 2013

    …Read the summary of the text recycling Forum discussion,held on 12 March 2013 ----- Self-
  • Case Submitted

    …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…
  • Seminars and webinars

    WCRI 2019: Responsible authorship

    …authors that editors find difficult to manage.  The five most common problems include: claims of stolen data, methods, or intellectual content (31%); incomplete, inconclusive, or suspicious institutional investigations (18%); undeclared conflicts of interest (18%); misconduct in conducting, analysing, or reporting findings (19%); and duplicate publication or salami slicing (14%). Specific author…
  • News

    Final 3 flowcharts now available in Spanish

    The final three flow charts have now been translated into Spanish and are available here.   These are: Advice on how to spot authorship problems; Suspected guest, ghost or gift authorship; and What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data.…
  • Case

    The study that may or may not already have been published

    …clear whether this was a new study or a presentation of existing data. Despite asking twice, the authors never gave a clear answer. The head of the institution was therefore informed and asked to provide one instead, and to consider whether this was an example of research misconduct. Has the editor done the right thing?…
  • Guidelines

    Retraction guidelines

    …consider retracting a publication if: They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation) It constitutes plagiarism The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to…

Pages