Showing 76–100 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. Plagiarized figure

  2. Author disagreement blocks submission

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

  4. Possible self-plagiarism and/or prior publication

  5. Institutional review board approval required?

  6. Institutional review board approval needed?

  7. Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company

  8. Fraud or sloppiness in a submitted manuscript

  9. A case with no independent institution to investigate

  10. Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality

  11. Image manipulation as a general practice

  12. Coauthor fails to respond to request to confirm coauthorship

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

  14. Online posting of confidential draft by peer reviewer

  15. Identifying patient information published in a figure

  16. Claim of plagiarism in published article

  17. Misattributed authorship and unauthorized use of data

  18. Two reviewer reports contain a significant amount of verbatim textual overlap

    Case number: 
  19. Ethical concerns about a study involving human subjects

  20. A case of plagiarism?

  21. Omitted author

  22. A case of salami slicing

  23. Authorship dispute

  24. Retraction update?

  25. Unusually frequent submission of articles by a single author