- Case
Self-plagiarism of review article
A reader flagged up that a review article originally published in a journal X in April 2003 had subsequently appeared with a few minor additions and deletions in journal Y (our journal) in July 2004 and then in journal Z (of which the author is an editor) in September 2006. The authors on the paper are all from the same institute although with some minor differences between the publications: jo… - News
In the news: April 2018 Digest
…draws the parallel with and speculates that Sci-Hub may be involved, although not named in the indictment.https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/03/28/51123/ Authors of premier medical textbook didn’t disclose $11 million in industry payments Researchers led by Brian Piper evaluated financial… - News
Data and reproducibility: The role of research institutions
…href="https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples" target="_blank">FAIR Data Principles -- making research data “Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable”, it falls on funders, publishers, researchers and their institutions to establish practices and policies for the appropriate handling of research data. Research institutions -- as the home of significant research data production and management -- have a particularly critical role… - Case
Data fabrication, lack of ethical approval, withdrawal of paper and publication in another journal
This query refers to a clinical trial comparing two forms of treatment which has since been published in another journal. I originally received this manuscript in 2009. One of the referees alerted me to the fact that the data looked strange. Furthermore, the test and controls groups were perfectly distributed, which is almost impossible. Along with the usual requests for modifications, I… - Case
What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction versus correction?
A short research article described a new method and tested the method, showing proof-of-concept that the method worked; the idea for the method is presented as the authors’ own. On publication, the paper receives an overwhelmingly positive response from the community. Shortly after publication, the editorial team is contacted by a PhD student and their supervisor who had published the id… - News
Artificial intelligence in the news
…="https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2019/02/06/meet-bertie-heliograf-and-cyborg-the-new-journalists-on-the-block">possibilities and ethics of artificial intelligence tools for - News
Artificial intelligence and authorship
…words, sentence structures, topics and evidence, are most likely to appear together in an answer on almost any given question. The internet has gone wild with people reporting their interactions with ChatGTP, from those challenging it to Outcomes of editors' attempts to investigate research misconduct
…it up. When the editors contacted the author's institution in another, no reply was received, and in another they were given a brush-off, on the grounds that the author was no longer an employee so it was not their concern. Medical negligence Medical negligence made up 11 cases of which one was still open. It usually concerned…- News
Guest article: Avoiding predatory publishers
…because all the translations have been provided by volunteer researchers and librarians. Think.Check.Submit. exists because of the support of nine industry organizations - Case
Mislabelling/duplicate images
We were contacted by a reader who told us that he had spotted a number of cases of image duplication and mislabelling of fluorescent tags that had occurred over the past 4 years. These involved two papers published in our journal, and two other papers published in two different journals. The two papers in our journal were both reviews, and the one that had the most occurrences involved a poster… - Case
Inappropriate authorship on students paper
A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study which was a final year student's project was submitted as an original article to our journal on 30 April 2011. On initial review it was obvious that it was conducted by students and written by them, but the list of authors had the supervisor as the first author, followed by 13 students. The supervisor, who was also the corresponding author, wa… - Case
Meta-analysis: submission of unreliable findings
A meta-analysis was conducted of about 1000 patients included in a number of small trials of a drug for emergency management administered by route X compared with route Y. The report concluded that administration by route X improves short term survival. Chronology The paper was submitted to our journal in September 2011 and after peer review was retur… - News
Case discussion: Consequence for dual submission
…submission”, or “simultaneously submitted” return fewer cases. Performing a Boolean search for ["multiple submission" + "questionable behaviour (author)"] returns 12 cases: the case under discussion and 11 others. Case discussion In COPE Forum… - News
In the news: June 2021
Each month, COPE Council members find and share publication ethics news. This month the news includes articles on intellectual property, preprints, peer review, and more. Data and reproducibility The Food and Drug Administration in the USA informed Accleron Pharma that… - Case
Lack of ethical approval and not reporting experimental evidence
In May 2011 a letter from the Vice-Rector for Personnel of a reputable university was sent to the editor mentioning that two articles published in the journal contained two statements not supported by documented evidence. The two statements related to: (1) approval of the local ethics committee and (2) representation of the experimental evidence. With regard to point (1), the authors sta… - Case
Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
The Editors decided to comply with the author’s request. The manuscript was rejected, based on two peer-review reports and opinions from 11 editors. The author was told that the journal had complied with the request, and that advice had been sought from COPE. The author subsequently appealed the decision; this was not upheld. In light of this, the editorial board were asked to create… - Translated resources
El autor solicita que ciertos expertos no participen en el proceso editorial: caso
…Existe el peligro de que esto envalentone más aún al autor si los revisores que sugirió finalmente están involucrados en el proceso de revisión. Además, los editores tienen el deber de proteger a los revisores. Sejuimiento Los editores decidieron acceder a la solicitud del autor. El manuscrito se rechazó basándose en los informes de dos revisores por pares y en la opinión de 11… - News
Case Discussion: Withdrawal of paper at proof stage
Case Summary Case 19-11 An original paper was submitted to a journal, peer reviewed, revised by the authors, and accepted by the manuscript editor. It was scheduled for publication 3 months later. After the paper was copyedited and typeset, the corresponding author was… - News
Case Discussion: Lack of trial registration leads to new concerns about study conduct and ethical review/approval
…Case Summary Case 11-11 The editors of a journal noticed that a published article reported clinical trial results without mentioning trial registration. When… - News
Where next in peer review? Part 2: COPE commentary
…held its first Forum on AI in November 2019, when the topic was AI in decision making. At that stage it was noted that technology was starting to bring in ‘data-driven solutions’, and that AI could potentially provide guidance to humans or automate a range of…