Showing 51–75 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. Parental consent for participants

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

  3. Low risk study with no ethics committee approval

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

  5. Publication of expression of concern

  6. Data anonymity

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

  8. Multiple redundant submissions from the same author

  9. Disclosure and transparency issue

  10. Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process

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

  12. Profusion of copied text passages

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

  14. Requesting authorship after publication

  15. Author impersonating corresponding author without knowledge of coauthors

  16. Handling self-admissions of fraud

  17. Duplicate publication and removal of article

  18. Suspected image manipulation involving four journals

  19. Author disagreement regarding article corrections

  20. Authorship dispute

  21. Ethics committee approval

  22. Revoked parental consent

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

  24. The ethics of self-experimentation

  25. Institution alleges that paper includes fabricated data