Showing 551–575 of 583 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. Triplicate publication with possibly different data in each

  2. The missing author

  3. Questions of authorship, duplicate publication and copyright

  4. Patients with vitiligo treated with anti-fungal drugs by a general practitioner

  5. Uncertain treatment of four patients following previous published experiments

    Case number: 
  6. Possible duplicate publication?

    Case number: 
  7. Grounds for retraction?

  8. Unethical research

  9. An author plagiarising the work of the reviewer?

  10. Redundant publication?

  11. Plagiarism

  12. The critical commentary

    Case number: 
  13. Failing to get consent from an ethics committee

  14. Redundant publication

  15. Unethical research undertaken by a single handed GP

  16. Disputed authorship

  17. Blatant example of duplicate publication?

  18. The tortuous tale of a paper, a letter and an editorial

  19. The perfect study but no investigational drug

  20. Not getting consent from an ethics committee

  21. Double plagiarism

  22. Suspected fabrication of data

  23. The fraudulent letter

  24. Informed consent

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