- Case
Concerns about the reliability of findings following re-analysis of a dataset from a published article
Following publication of an article, a reader posted a comment raising some questions about the data analysis in the study and the availability of the dataset. We followed-up with the authors and they offered to share the dataset with the reader—the dataset involves genetic information from potentially identifiable patients and as a result the authors indicated that the deposition of the data w… - Case
Ethical issues of responding to government agency request for information
A journal published several articles, reviewed by reviewers recommended by the author, that were identified as suspect. After a thorough investigation, the journal determined that almost all of the peer review responses for these articles were fabricated - the result of identity misappropriation and fraud. The journal was subsequently contacted by two government agencies of the country… - Case
Nuisance author
…You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right An author submitted a paper which went through the review process and was rejected. He is now sending abusive emails to me, the editor, and spamming an enormous number of people in his research area and the government (he even tried to contact the royal office) as a protest. He continues to submit his paper (over 20… - Case
Should we retract a published paper with a high similarity match?
The journal published an original article in 2022. Recently, we received feedback from a third party that the paper is similar to the authors' other work published in 2019. The duplicate rate of the initial submission was 31% and the final version was 24% which is within the journal’s standard. The concern was that the paper may not add value as the authors have already published similar… - News
WCRI 2019: Responsible authorship panel
…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 behaviours leading to disputes… - News
Guest article: Self-plagiarism in philosophy
…-sexually-assaulted-journal-retracts-paper-duplication/" target="_blank"> retractions. I am hopeful that the situation is improving. The increase in published corrections in the last few years is good sign. Diversity policy
…name="responsibilities">Responsibilities This policy applies to all COPE employees, freelancers, contracted staff, and volunteers, and anyone acting on behalf of COPE. All employees, freelancers, contracted staff, and members of COPE Council and Trustees are responsible for familiarising themselves with this policy and understanding their obligations as defined herein. 1. All employees, freelancers and contracted staff…- News
In the news: May & June 2022
…unethical practices and offer advice to scientists. Even as medicine becomes more diverse, the lead authors in two of the USA's most prestigious medical journals remain white and male. Research misconduct Springer Nature has released - News
In the news: February Digest
…peer review processes have been documented as far back as ancient Rome such that all of us may have a lot in common with Cicero. https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2019/12/31/5-things-we-learned-about-peer-review-in-2019/ Nyssa Sibiger and Amber Stubler… - Case
A case of scientific misconduct?
We had a paper submitted reporting results of a randomized trial. The trial seemed to look at immune responses in lung fluid in participants receiving either a particular vaccine or placebo. We got a copy of the trial protocol before going to peer review as per our normal editorial policy, and made sure the trial was registered. One reviewer pointed out major discrepancies (principally i… Publication ethics issues in AHSS: New study
…following key findings: 64% of respondents encountered issues addressing language and writing quality barriers while seeking to remain inclusive. 58% reported detecting plagiarism as the most serious issue they dealt with, followed by fraudulent submissions (44%) and data or image fabrication (31%). Recognising and dealing with bias in peer reviewer comments was an issue…- Case
Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication
…the retraction. The new paper would have to be considered as a new submission and should be reviewed by a new set of reviewers. It was noted that a recent issue of The Lancet (31 January 2015) contained a re-published article that had originally been retracted. There was also a linked commentary explaining what had happened. It was suggested that the editor may wish to use this as a model if he… - Case
Reviewer anonymity in post publication peer review
A journal with an open peer review process (names and reports published alongside articles) accepted an article after assessment by three peer reviewers. Two reviewers were positive and the third reviewer raised some concerns about the methodology. A revised version of the manuscript was published alongside the three peer reviewer reports and the authors’ response After publicatio… - Case
Plagiarism versus questionable research writing practice
The authors of a paper were asked to explain alleged plagiarism in a submitted and subsequently accepted manuscript. This was based on a Turnitin report showing 28% similarity between the submitted manuscript (Author B) and a previously published paper (Author A), and 37% similarity between a published manuscript (Author A) and a submitted manuscript (Author B). The authors came back with an ex… - News
Artificial intelligence in the news
…literature. This is clearly of particular concern in subjects where public health, legal standing or finance is a concern. There are also potential issues for editors in detecting the use of AI if authors do not declare it: OpenAI is working on a watermark for outputs generated by… - News
In the news: February 2021
…"near-final, peer-reviewed" versions of papers into publicly accessible online repositories (Green Open Access) in order to comply with Plan S requirements. This applies to about 31% of research papers in this group of journals. AAAS will evaluate the results in one year,… - News
In the news: April 2021
Each month, COPE Council members find and share publication ethics news. This month the news includes articles on corrections, diversity and inclusion, authorship, and more. Corrections A detailed study of the responses to a specific reagent error in 31 human gene knockdown publications,… - News
In the news: May 2021
…insight into how peer review has evolved in the 21st century. The authors discuss what the data can teach us about how the research culture is changing, in this blog. A new peer-review organisation, called… - Case
Withdrawal of acceptance based on potentially unconsented data
…free of the use of the ethically inappropriate data. Given that the four letters were heavily based on the papers and cite data, figures, and equations, the decision was made not to publish the letters. The authors have complained that the journal has gone against COPE guidelines: "3.1 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the… - News
In the news: January 2018 Digest
…="_blank">http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/12/science_papers_should_be_written_by_robots.html Data and reproducibility A UK parliamentary committee held a fascinating discussion ranging over retractions, research misconduct and how to regulate it, and whether all clinical trial data should be…