Showing 1–25 of 593 results.

All the cases COPE has discussed since 1997 are here in a searchable database. We have over 500 cases, with the advice given by the COPE Forum (COPE members) or by COPE Council (designated with a “C” case number) and, for some cases, follow-up information and outcome. We hope this database will provide a valuable resource for editors and those researching publication ethics.

You can search by classification or keyword or by filtering your inquiry by core practice. The COPE Case Taxonomy gives more detail of COPE's classifications and keywords. 

We encourage members to look at the database before submitting a case to the Forum or to COPE Council to see if similar cases have already been discussed. Please note that advice is specific to the particular case under consideration and may not necessarily be applicable to similar cases either past or future.

The cases are brought by COPE members to the Forum (or to Council) and are discussed between all the participants of the Forum (or members of the Council). The notes in each case reflect the discussion that took place. The advice from the Forum participants (or from Council) is provided back to the member who brought the case, but the final decision on handling the case lies with the member editor and/or publisher.

COPE accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused or occasioned as a result of advice given by them or by any COPE member. Advice given by COPE and its members is not given for the purposes of court proceedings within any jurisdiction and may not be cited or relied upon for this purpose.

  1. Victim of article theft wants correction to list their name, not retraction

  2. Data fabrication in a rejected manuscript

  3. Peer reviewer contacted by author

  4. Authorship conflict

  5. Self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing

  6. A pre-submission inquiry with a bribe

  7. Increased number of casual submissions

    Case number: 
  8. Scientific misconduct claim from a whistleblower where the institution will not investigate

  9. Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute

  10. Are copyrighted conference audiotapes considered "prior publication"?

  11. Undisclosed conflict of interest

  12. Retrospective registration, outcome switching and ethical approval

  13. Licence for a published scale

  14. Editor and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work

  15. Dispute between two authors

  16. License for using a published scale

  17. Unethical withdrawal after acceptance to maximize the 'impact factor'?

  18. Service evaluation as research in a controversial area of medicine

  19. Stolen article

  20. Consequence for dual submission

  21. Ethics of non-active management of a control group

  22. Pre-publication in a discussion paper series

  23. Authorship issues from disbanded consortium

  24. Editor manipulation of impact factor

  25. Unhelpful institution report