Showing 276–300 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. Multiple failure to declare a relevant conflict of interest

  2. Sponsorship, ethical approval and consent for study done as part of an expanded access program

  3. Researchers give an experimental therapy to patients based on a laboratory study published in our journal

  4. Possible case of fraud

  5. Attempt at dual publication

  6. An investigation into results that were “almost too good to be true”

  7. Inadvertent discovery of salami submission

  8. Author dispute over internal report

  9. The judgement of Solomon: a case of two strikingly similar papers

  10. Is ethics approval required?

  11. A survey of doctors’ opinions, with no IRB approval or written consent

  12. Unusual consent process in a vulnerable population

  13. Author trap/fabrication detection

  14. Controversy regarding ownership of a device

  15. Non-compliance of author with request for information

  16. Signing on behalf of other authors

  17. An appropriate response to concerns of research validity

  18. HIV testing without offering treatment to affected individuals

  19. Studies where there is no research ethics committee, or where committees disagree as to the need for approval

  20. Effect of the British Human Tissue Acts on biological monitoring

  21. Confidentiality and privacy issue

  22. Authorship issue

  23. Plagiarism case

  24. Declaration of contributorship

  25. Lack of patient consent for a case report, patient confidentiality