Cases

Showing 26–50 of 566 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. Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process

  2. Publication of expression of concern

  3. Data anonymity

  4. Publication of a manuscript on an external website after acceptance but prior to journal publication

  5. Multiple redundant submissions from the same author

  6. Disclosure and transparency issue

  7. Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process

    Case number: 
    16-03
    Year: 
    2016
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  8. Attempt to supress legitimate scientific results

  9. Profusion of copied text passages

  10. Inability to contact an author to obtain permission to publish

  11. Requesting authorship after publication

  12. First author submits paper, impersonating corresponding author, without knowledge of co-authors

  13. Handling self-admissions of fraud

  14. Duplicate publication and removal of article

  15. Suspected image manipulation involving four journals

  16. Author disagreement regarding article corrections

    Case number: 
    15-08
    Year: 
    2015
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  17. Authorship dispute

  18. Ethics committee approval

    Case number: 
    15-07
    Year: 
    2015
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  19. Revoked parental consent

    Case number: 
    15-09
    Year: 
    2015
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  20. Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication

  21. The ethics of self-experimentation

  22. Institution alleges that paper includes fabricated data

  23. Plagiarized figure

  24. Author disagreement blocks submission

  25. Possible omission of information essential for conclusions in a research paper

    Case number: 
    14-11
    Year: 
    2014
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed

Pages