- Case
Duplicate submission or self plagiarism. Is the author to blame?
…via conferences is the norm; whole papers are submitted, and if accepted, become part of the publication record. In general, it is not a good idea to use hard cut-offs on plagiarism detection software, but rather to look at the areas of overlap for substantive or important duplications. Plenty of articles with 30%+ overlap are fine or easily fixed, and some severe examples of… Become a member
…Benefits of membership COPE members can: receive advice on individual cases via the Forum (bringing cases in person or by phone) attend the annual seminar (free for members) access the eLearning package use the ethical audit tool to see how well their journals match COPE’s guidelines use the COPE logo in their journal use sample letters to…- Seminars and webinars
Post-publication critiques
…opportunities to comment via social media have grown enormously, and the panellists agreed that it would be impossible to monitor all content in this form. With so many new ways to comment some of the older conventions on time limits to raise concerns have disappeared, and the opportunity to make responses within a timely window has grown. Readers should not censor themselves where they suspect that there are… - News
Case discussion: Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality
…included an attendance list), then the other journals would have more information for their investigation. The first editor that the author had approached in this case could also confirm that the two reviewers did not unknowingly grant that named delegate access to the manuscript via a mislaid printout or via files in a shared computer or a shared or lost memory stick or other device. The editor… - News
Creating and implementing research data policies: COPE webinar report
…management policies, namely identification (persistent identifiers), description/discovery (via associated metadata), peer review of data, and data citation. He also explained that the role of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines is not to mandate for data access per se, but to mandate disclosure of data… - Case
Breach of peer review confidentiality
…that reviewer B had reported on the wrong manuscript, which he/she could only have obtained via reviewer A. On receiving feedback on the second reviewer B report from the author (ie, that it must refer to the R0 manuscript instead of the R1), the editor emailed reviewer B, laying out the events and concerns, as described above. The email ended with the following observation: “Both the contact… - Case
Possible self-plagiarism and/or prior publication
In October 2014 it came to our attention via one of the reviewers of a manuscript submitted to our journal that an identical article (100% identical) had been previously published on the website of the author. The submitting author had not made us aware in their submission documentation that the article had been publicly available on their website at the point of submission. Two different but… - Case
Dispute arising from peer review of a rejected comment and published correction
…that they had been privy to only via their involvement in the peer review of the comment, and that this fact had not been acknowledged in the correction. Group B requested the journal withdraw the correction and re-open the peer review of the comment. As the journal’s management team considered that the first request would leave an error in the scientific record uncorrected and the second… - Case
Managing an editor’s undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article
…steps that were taken. The complainant was separately informed of the resolution, and a copy of the note from the publisher was shared once published. The publisher also raised awareness with editors on potential conflicts of interest via a webinar and with written guidance.… - News
Guest editorial: the challenge of AI chatbots for journal editors
…to be named as an author and any submissions where it is included are screened out at the online submission stage. Editorials, however, are handled by the Editor-in-Chief and so this issue was missed. In due course, a corrigendum was issued but not before the erroneous authorship had been - Case
What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction versus correction?
…should be awareness of “ownership of ideas”. Transparency is key in these scenarios and ideas need to be properly credited. Some argued that the article adds something new (validation) and major correction (to address the unattributed copying via proper reference and attribution) undoes the “harm” done by the absence of attribution. However, some of the members of the Forum were concerned about… - Case
Lead author of a research paper disagrees with content of a linked editorial
…profile research, with extracts from the paper leaked, it can provide an opportunity for the author to influence process. In these situations, the journal can only manage expectations in relation to its own journal processes. The Forum agreed it is fine for authors to have the right of reply post publication (via comments/rapid response) if that is made clear in the journal policies, and as long… - Case
Service evaluation as research in a controversial area of medicine
…review was not required. Using the reference number cited in the article, the reader obtained the relevant documents from the research ethics committee via a freedom of information request. The reader argued that the documents from the ethics committee related to data that predated what was presented in the article. A review of the documents indicated that this appeared to be the case. In… - Seminars and webinars
COPE webinar 2018: Creating and implementing data research policies
…standards, which NISO is spearheading. He outlined four roles that standards can play in data management policies, namely identification (persistent identifiers), description/discovery (via associated metadata), peer review of data, and data citation. He also explained that the role of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP)… - Case
Complaint over protocol used in special issue
…would be appropriate to consider whether there are any agendas or conflicts at work when a proposal is received: for example, whether it is unscientific or a niche topic which will be lent credibility via publication. On the question of reviewer selection: this will rely on the editor knowing the field well and being able to achieve a balance between reviewers. Editors should consider whether… - Flowcharts
All Flowcharts
…Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media… - News
Case discussion: repeated complaints about a review
…="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/responding-whistleblowers-concerns-raised-social-media">How to respond to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media”. Some journals consider various factors for formal reader correspondence, such as recency, originality, length, number of illustrations and references, the need for evidence to support points, whether new data are allowed, research ethics, and conflicts of interest. There may also be policies and guidelines on if or… Facilitation and Integrity FAQ
…you have concerns about a rejection, log an appeal with the journal or consider pursuing the matter via the publisher’s complaints procedures. Based on COPE’s Core Practices, journals are expected to have documented processes for handling appeals on editorial decisions. If your concern relates to the…- News
In the news: February 2021
…services. These efforts will include making reference lists for all articles published in Elsevier journals openly available via Crossref, use of CRediT, and new bibliometric calculation methods. Trust in science US President Biden has nominated Eric Lander as his science advisor and for the first time has elevated the role to a cabinet-level position. "Elevating this role to membership in… Code of conduct for COPE meetings and events
…COPE will communicate the determination of the investigation, inclusive of any disciplinary action, to the involved parties as appropriate. If a party to a complaint does not agree with its resolution, that party may appeal to the COPE Board of Trustees (excluding any Trustees that were involved in the investigation) via the COPE Executive Officer or COPE Chair. Any decision of the Board of…