- Case
Removal of an author
…authors to justify the reason for change of authorship. All of the authors complied with the requirement except author C (the author to be removed). The corresponding author explained that author C did not participate in the paper (ie, they should not have been left on the paper in the first place). The explanations on who did what in the paper confirm this statement, but author C is not… - Case
Personal remarks within a post-publication literature forum
…class="List1"> · Should we have been more open with Member A as to why we were asking to edit his words? · Should we have a policy on the “tone” of dissents and follow-ups, or is this just common sense (ie, keep it civil and constructive)? Was there anything… - Case
Publication of papers from industry sponsored symposium
…the composition and subject matter of the symposium, except that the sponsors wanted to have an Enduring Material (ie, publication) resulting from the symposium. The support included honoraria for the seven speakers, which were higher than those for other speakers at the meeting, in part because these speakers were requested to produce articles. We wish to publish the papers (we… - Case
Registration of a randomised control trial
…it's trying to achieve; how common it actually is (ie, pretty normal, pretty low risk); why retrospective registration is not really good enough but why it can be an acceptable approach in some instances as a way to model better practice and thus encourage wider adoption of prospective registration. COPE would suggest if the authors still refuse to retrospectively register, the paper should… - Case
Retraction because of scientific misconduct even if the conclusions are sound?
…to punish the authors. If the science is sound, then a retraction is likely not appropriate. An exception would be if the conclusions fit the data but the misconduct affected the research integrity (ie, lack of ethics approval or informed consent from participants or lack of permission from a patient to publish a case report). Hence a statement of concern could be published which clearly expresses… - Case
Duplicate publication?
…a peer review in respected journals. They stated that they originally submitted real numbers, but the reviewers asked for simplification of the tables (ie, taking out the actual values of the measured variables). The editors wrote to the journals again (twice), asking them to clarify this, but still did not get any answer. The editors would like COPE’s advice on how to proceed?… - Case
Unusual consent process in a vulnerable population
…author of the paper. The letter stated that he has been in contact with the IRB and the IRB has now granted retrospective approval for the consent that was used in the trial (ie, asking one PTA representative at each school to consent on behalf of all the parents). The senior author wrote to the journal asking if we would now reconsider the paper. The editors gave a firm no, saying that (a) such… - Case
Institution alleges that paper includes fabricated data
…further specific information (ie, outlining the fabricated data) for three of the four papers. Of these three papers, two are now in the process of being retracted, while an academic editor has been consulted to advise on whether the third should be retracted or corrected, based on the additional scientific information now available. However, in regard to the fourth paper, published in our… - Case
Parental consent for participants
…procedure as well as their rights and agreed to participate. They said the law does not require informed consent when personal data (ie, data that could directly connect the information collected to the specific person) are not being gathered and stored during the process (with the exception of biomedical research). Hence institutional review board approval was not required and the project was therefore… - Case
Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern
…a “publication ethics” position here, besides that contained within its regular guidance for publishing (ie, to manage transparency, permissions, conflicts of interest, etc). Publishing letters or debate papers would make the process transparent. If the journal decides to publish the letters, the Forum recommended ensuring that the letter from the organisation is signed by an individual or individuals. The… - Case
Retraction or correction?
…institution needs to be asked to investigate and yield the raw anonymised data, so the editors can decide if the conclusions remain the same. However, if the original conclusion cannot hold to begin with, because the study was really a comparison (ie, the conclusion needs to take into account the results of the comparison), yet a comparison was never mentioned anywhere, then retraction would be the right… - Case
Dispute between two authors
…referenced in order to provide a different overview of the research findings (ie, they can be personal opinions in some cases). These are then published with the referenced manuscript in the same issue of the journal. Author A’s manuscript was published together with the mini-commentaries. The mini-commentary by author C disputed the findings in the paper by author A and stated that in their… - Case
Sufficient consent?
Following the last COPE meeting I went back to the author with the following questions: 1) Was ethical approval sought from the appropriate ethical review committee? 2) The details of consent process for each patient are unclear. Specifically how many people gave written consent? How many people gave oral consent? How many gave consent by proxy, i.e. by their “tutor”? Who… - Case
Duplicated gel images
…and the image showing the corresponding results was the same (ie, the entire experiment had not been repeated). The original referee R1, approached for further advice, felt that the corrected articles could be published and the fact that some results were not repeated was acceptable because it would involve a huge amount of work and it was not necessary. We also sought a second opinion from… - Case
Unethical withdrawal after acceptance to maximize the 'impact factor'?
…(ie, none of the publisher’s journals would consider future submissions from any of the authors, 2) the journal would write a letter to the superiors of the authors outlining the case and 3) they would still be responsible for the Article Processing Charge which is payable on acceptance; ours is an open access journal, with the fee schedule clearly disclosed and agreed upon by the submitting author… - Case
License for using a published scale
…could be that if the institution where the scale was developed has confirmed that the scale is in the public domain (ie, it can be reused without paying a licence fee), then the author could ask the institution for an official letter to that effect which they can forward to the team claiming a licence fee or threatening legal action against the author. Perhaps this might deter the team from sending… - Case
Conflicting authorship in a collaboration
…X an opportunity for a reply is a fair way to air the scientific debate before the readership. The journal should now ask Researcher Y to revise their comment to comply with the points raised by the reviewer (ie, to depersonalise it and focus on the science and its methods). The journal should follow its normal process and send the revised comment and also any revised reply in response to its… FORUM DISCUSSION TOPIC: comments please
…Ideally, issues relating to competing interests should be handled before publication (ie, during the review process of the journal). Hence, the first and most important issue is that journals and publishers should have a clear process in place, and that it is clearly and regularly articulated to authors, reviewers, editors and journal staff. Competing interests declarations should ideally be…- Case
A case of scientific misconduct?
…protocol describing a trial (ie the one involving randomization to vaccine or placebo) have gone unreported. Why? We are also very worried about validity of the data and analyses (even to the point of suspecting fabrication, of a sort), because of this level of selectivity. (3) Misrepresentation in the original manuscript. Our… - News
Data and reproducibility: The role of research institutions
…="http://www.sickkids.ca/Research/EnRICH/Publication-School/EQUATOR-Canada-Publication-School.html" target="_blank">Publication Schools, Data Carpentry workshops). Dedicated staff (i.e., Publications Officers), and investment into institutional libraries or research offices, will be required to develop these support structures. For the COPE…