Cases

Showing 51–75 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. Suspected image manipulation involving four journals

  2. Author disagreement regarding article corrections

  3. Authorship dispute

  4. Ethics committee approval

  5. Revoked parental consent

  6. Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication

  7. The ethics of self-experimentation

  8. Institution alleges that paper includes fabricated data

  9. Plagiarized figure

  10. Author disagreement blocks submission

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

  12. Possible self-plagiarism and/or prior publication

  13. Institutional review board approval required?

  14. Institutional review board approval needed?

  15. Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company

  16. Fraud or sloppiness in a submitted manuscript
    Audio

  17. A case with no independent institution to investigate
    Audio

  18. Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality
    Audio

  19. Image manipulation as a general practice

  20. Coauthor fails to respond to request to confirm coauthorship

  21. Potential fabrication of data in primary studies included in a meta-analysis accepted for publication

  22. Online posting of confidential draft by peer reviewer

  23. Identifying patient information published in a figure

  24. Claim of plagiarism in published article

  25. Misattributed authorship and unauthorized use of data

Pages