Showing 576–593 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. Disputed authorship

  2. Blatant example of duplicate publication?

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

  4. The perfect study but no investigational drug

  5. Not getting consent from an ethics committee

  6. Double plagiarism

  7. Suspected fabrication of data

  8. The fraudulent letter

  9. Informed consent

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

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

  12. False memory syndrome

  13. Attempted redundant publication?

  14. Patient consent and non-consent

  15. Living unrelated (commercial) organ transplant

  16. Disagreement between a reviewer and an author

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

  18. Can a scientific paper be published anonymously?