- Event
COPE Australian Forum
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is holding a COPE Forum in Brisbane, on 14 November 2013 at: Don Carruthers eXchange Zone Level 5, Dorothy Hill Engineering and Sciences Library (building #50) The University of Queensland - St Lucia Campus Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia Building location: - Case
The missing ethics committee and lack of written consent
A study that helps with the microbiological diagnosis of a clinical condition had been peer reviewed and accepted for publication when it was discovered that the study had no formal ethics committee approval and that the patients had given verbal rather than written consent. The journal contacted the authors, who responded by saying that the chairman of the ethics committee in their area did kn… - 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
In the News: July Digest
…with another 31 found blameworthy for their contributions, in relation to six articles authored by Paolo Macchiarini.https://ki.se/en/news/seven-researchers-responsible-for-scientific-misconduct-in-macchiarini-case Authorship and contributorship The… - Event
COPE Forum November 2017
…(SS) 17-14 Withdrawal request by an author (LS) 4. Updates 17-11 Authorship dispute unsatisfactorily resolved by institution 17-12 Potential figure manipulation with corresponding author uncontactable Forum agenda and materials… - Event
COPE Forum
…unsatisfactorily resolved by institution (JM) 17-12 Potential figure manipulation with corresponding author uncontactable (JM) 17-13 Unhelpful institution report (SS) 17-14 Withdrawal request by an author (LS) 4. Updates 17-09 Lead author Forum agenda and materials - Case
Publication bias arising from an editor’s activities
The committee’s attention has been drawn to alleged publication bias in Journal X. It is alleged that an editor on X had invited a young trainee in radiology to author some 14 commentaries over the past 5 years. His most recent commentary draws attention to one important study from France but otherwise covers the same territory as his previous commentaries without mention of relevant… - Seminars and webinars
ISMTE webinar 2020: Transparency in the Publishing Process
…in the Publishing Process' on 14 September 2020, he presented a webinar on “Ethical use of professional editorial and publishing support services”. Transparency in the publishing process presentation (PDF) Our thanks to ISMTE for permission to post these… - Event
COPE Forum: Wednesday 9 June 2021
The 9 June 2021 COPE Forum will be held at 14:00-15:30pm BST (UTC + 1). The discussion topic "When and how to involve multiple journals and… - Case
Is this previous publication?
A manuscript was submitted to our journal and, on running a routine CrossCheck report, we found that it contained a 68% match (over 5000 words) to a report from a funded project by the authors that had recently been published online. Because the similarity match was so high, we rejected the manuscript. The author is now contesting the rejection, arguing that the funded project had demand… - Case
Authorship conflict
Author A contacted our journal following publication of a manuscript claiming that he was the rightful author. We asked the author for proof and he said that he had all of the data concerning the patient because he received the operative specimen and made the diagnosis. Author A said he also collaborated in writing the article with author B and hence was surprised that neither his name nor his… - Event
COPE Forum: June 2024
…Forum is: Friday 14 June 2024. Forum agenda Thursday 20 June 2024, 10:30-12:00 (BST / UTC+1) 1. Update on COPE activities Update on COPE activities by the Chair. 2. Forum discussion topic: Ethical considerations around watchlists We begin the COPE Forum with a discussion on - Event
COPE Forum: Monday 5 November 2018
…18-11 Increased number of casual submissions 18-12 A pre-submission inquiry with a bribe 18-13 Self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing 18-14 Authorship conflict 18-15 Peer reviewer contacted by author 18-16 Data fabrication in a rejected manuscript 18-17 Possible plagiarism 18-18 Victim of article theft wants correction to list… - Event
COPE Forum: Monday 11 November 2019, 4pm (GMT)
…topic whether or not you are planning on joining the Forum. 3. New cases 19-12 Appropriate scope of review for retractions 19-13 Reproducibility of methodology 19-14 Removal of an author 19-15 Authorship dispute during review process 4. Updates on cases 19-09 Deceased author 19-08 Authorship issue related to misleading… - Event
COPE Forum: Tuesday 15 December 2020
COPE members can now register to attend the December Forum, to be held on Tuesday 15 December 2:00-3:30pm GMT. The deadline to register is Monday 14 December. The discussion topic is 'Predatory publishing: next steps and where do we go from here?'. This will be followed by… - Event
COPE Forum: Wednesday 22 June 2022
…Forum agenda On 22 June 2022 the COPE Forum will be held at 14:00-15:30pm (BST / UTC+1) 1. Update Update on COPE activities by the Chair. 2. Forum discussion topic We begin the COPE Forum with a discussion on the topic Dealing with… - Case
Duplicate publication based on government data
A group of researchers from departments of psychology and public health submitted a paper based on a survey that had been commissioned by the NHS Executive. The paper was received at Journal A on 14 May 1998 and a decision to offer publication of a revised version was made on 25 June 1998. Over a year elapsed between this offer and the resubmission of a revised version of the paper due to… - Case
Sloppiness or deception?
A case control study that links miscarriage to a particular event was published in Journal A. The paper says that most women were pregnant when interviewed. Whether or not they had miscarried when interviewed matters because of “recall bias.” In fact, most of the women who miscarried had already miscarried and so were not pregnant. The statement that most of the women were pregnant is “true” be… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Analysis of retractions, initiators and reasons for retractions
…perspective on retractions, and Howard Browman shares an update on COPE's revised retractions discussion document. Watch now To hear Thed Van Leeuwen's presentation, listen from 11:14. - Research
CrossCheck guidance: an analysis of typical cases of plagiarism in different disciplines 2010
…Jia XY, Lin HF, Tan XF. Editorial: Be careful! Avoiding duplication: a case study. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B (Biomedicine & Biotechnology) 2013;14(4):355–358. doi:10.1631/jzus.B1300078 4. Jia XY, Tan XF, Zhang YH. Replication of the methods section in biosciences papers: is it plagiarism? Scientometrics 2013. doi 10.1007/s11192-013-1033-5