Cases

Showing 551–566 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. The tortuous tale of a paper, a letter and an editorial

  2. The perfect study but no investigational drug

    Case number: 
    97-18
    Year: 
    1997
  3. Not getting consent from an ethics committee

  4. Double plagiarism

    Case number: 
    97-16
    Year: 
    1997
  5. Suspected fabrication of data

    Case number: 
    97-13
    Year: 
    1997
  6. The fraudulent letter

    Case number: 
    97-11
    Year: 
    1997
  7. Informed consent

  8. A commentary on a piece of (unethical) research

  9. The reviewer writes comments that he doesn’t want the author to see

    Case number: 
    97-08
    Year: 
    1997
  10. False memory syndrome

  11. Attempted redundant publication?

  12. Patient consent and non-consent

  13. Living unrelated (commercial) organ transplant

  14. Disagreement between a reviewer and an author

  15. Should we have had author consent for a randomised controlled trial of a peer review?

    Case number: 
    97-02
    Year: 
    1997
  16. Can a scientific paper be published anonymously?

Pages