Showing 1–25 of 582 results.

All of the cases COPE has discussed since its inception in 1997 have been entered into a searchable database. This database now contains over 500 cases together with the advice given by COPE. For more recent cases, we also include 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 using either the search field (top left) or by filtering your inquiry using the years and classifications/keywords listed below. A more detailed explanation of the classifications and keywords can be found on the;COPE Case Taxonomy page.

We encourage members to look at the database before submitting a case to the Forum to see if similar cases have already been discussed and to see the format used for presenting cases. However, please note that advice from the COPE Forum meetings is specific to the particular case under consideration and may not necessarily be applicable to similar cases either past or future.

All of the cases are brought by specific members to the Forum and are discussed between all the participants of the Forum. The notes below reflect the discussion that took place. The advice from the Forum participants is provided back to the member who brought the case to the Forum 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. Can a scientific paper be published anonymously?

  2. Should we have had author consent for a randomised controlled trial of a peer review?

  3. Disagreement between a reviewer and an author

  4. Living unrelated (commercial) organ transplant

  5. Patient consent and non-consent

  6. Attempted redundant publication?

  7. False memory syndrome

  8. The reviewer writes comments that he doesn’t want the author to see

  9. A commentary on a piece of (unethical) research

  10. Informed consent

  11. The fraudulent letter

  12. Suspected fabrication of data

  13. Double plagiarism

  14. Not getting consent from an ethics committee

  15. The perfect study but no investigational drug

  16. The tortuous tale of a paper, a letter and an editorial

  17. Blatant example of duplicate publication?

  18. Disputed authorship

  19. Unethical research undertaken by a single handed GP

  20. Redundant publication

  21. Failing to get consent from an ethics committee

  22. The critical commentary

    Case number: 
  23. Plagiarism

  24. Redundant publication?

  25. An author plagiarising the work of the reviewer?