Showing 26–50 of 577 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. Institutional investigation of authorship dispute

  2. Author accused of stealing research and publishing under their name

  3. Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern

  4. Authorship dispute and possible unreported protocol amendment

  5. Author requests permission to publish review comments

    Case number: 
    Case Closed
  6. Author of rejected paper publicly names and criticises peer reviewer

  7. What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction vs correction?

  8. The role of the lead author

  9. Parental consent for participants

  10. Paper B plagiarised paper A: what to do if a journal does not respond?

  11. Low risk study with no ethics committee approval

  12. Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process

  13. Publication of expression of concern

  14. Data anonymity

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

  16. Multiple redundant submissions from the same author

  17. Disclosure and transparency issue

  18. Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process

    Case number: 
    Case Closed
  19. Attempt to supress legitimate scientific results

  20. Profusion of copied text passages

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

  22. Requesting authorship after publication

  23. Author impersonating corresponding author without knowledge of coauthors

  24. Handling self-admissions of fraud

  25. Duplicate publication and removal of article