You are here

2015

Case

Erratum query

15-29

We have been notified that an erratum is about to be published on a Research article in Journal A, which is one of the key references supporting a Review article subsequently published in Journal B. All parties are agreed that the erratum (which corrects an oversight in reporting methodology) in no way affects either the data presented in the paper or the conclusions reached.

Questions for COPE Council

Case

Duplicate publication

15-28

We were made aware of a double publication in our journal dating from 20 years ago. A paper which was originally published in French in another journal the year previously was translated and published in our journal. The editorial paperwork is long lost, however, the principal author is a member of our editorial board. They readily responded and explained that it was not uncommon at that time to publish translated papers if the original paper was printed in a ‘non-accessible’ language.

Case

Withdrawal of an article

15-27

We received a manuscript for consideration for publication in one of our journals (Journal A). During the peer review process we became aware that the manuscript had already been published in another journal (Journal B). When we asked the authors about this they said that they had asked the other journal to withdraw their manuscript before publication but this had not been done.

Case

Inquiry concerning potential peer reviewer misconduct

15-26

A journal received the recommendation of a peer reviewer which expressed doubts about the validity of some of the data in an article. The editor-in-chief got in touch directly with the author and mediated to have the data validated by an outside contributor.

The authors responded by providing data validation by a colleague, who is now becoming a potential coauthor. The initial data were provided by the author and were convincingly validated.

Case

Editor adding reference to an author's work

15-25

Several years ago Author A was asked by Editor B to contribute an essay to a publication. The book took a long time to complete and underwent many modifications. When the book was published Author A noticed that several edits had been made to the text without Author A being informed and which Author A did not approve. The most notable edit is an added reference to a piece of text. The added reference now makes it look as though the author is quoting Editor B.

Case

Letter to the editor and retraction notice

15-24

A Letter to the Editor was submitted to Journal A – this Letter contained major criticisms of a paper previously published in Journal A, in particular of the statistical analysis underpinning the conclusions and the study design, and called for its retraction. The Editor sent the Letter out for peer review and some revisions were made by the authors.

Case

Questionable authorship information

15-23

We have a paper in production that presents refutations of common criticisms made of a domestic cleaning or skin care ingredient.  The majority of the authors are scientific research officers of a firm that sells products containing the ingredient.  One other author is stated to be associated with a university but does not appear to hold a PhD.  It is stated in the corrected proofs that this individual is a ‘scientific writer’, which was not disclosed when the paper was submitted.

Case

Seven plagiarized manuscripts in one month by the same corresponding author

15-22

In one month we have received 11 manuscripts (9 case reports, 1 original study and 1 letter) written by authors from a European Union country. The manuscripts were submitted by the same corresponding author (author A) who was also the first author in all of the 11 manuscripts. Another author was the second author (author B) in 10 of the manuscripts. There were two other authors (authors C and D) in two of the manuscripts.

Case

How to deal with obvious but disclosed conflict of interest

15-21

We are dealing with a paper which contains an obvious but disclosed conflict of interest. The paper has two authors who are company employees (one is the CEO). The study does not directly involve their product (a medical device) but does directly involve the assessment of the broader medical service which it supports. The results of their study are favourable toward the company. All company affiliations are disclosed. 

Case

Retraction of article and accompanying editorial

15-20

The authors of a published article have asked to have an article retracted for internal policy reasons. However, we have solicited and published an editorial which accompanies this article and specifically references it within the text. We are unsure how to handle this.

Question for COPE Council

  • Does COPE have any policy or protocol for cases like this?

Pages