Cases

Showing 126–150 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.

Disclaimer:
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. Compromised peer review (unpublished)

  2. Possible violation of the Helsinki Declaration on Scientific Research with Humans

  3. Duplication of data

  4. Unethical private practice

  5. Authorship dispute

  6. Compromised peer review system in published papers

  7. Meta-analysis: submission of unreliable findings

  8. More than a breach of confidentiality?

  9. Alleged misuse of confidential information

  10. Was this study unethical?

  11. Review of a book written by an editor of a journal

  12. Correcting errors versus privileged information

  13. Accusation of non-attribution of authorship

    Case number: 
    12-04
    Year: 
    2012
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  14. Submissions from institutions where misconduct has previously been suspected

  15. How to correct an incorrect decision to publish a flawed paper

  16. Habitual plagiarist

    Case number: 
    12-01
    Year: 
    2012
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  17. Reviewer asks trainee to review manuscript

  18. Request to withdraw as an author of an accepted but unpublished paper

  19. Author creates bogus email accounts for proposed reviewers

  20. Publication of private data

  21. Lack of ethical approval and not reporting experimental evidence

  22. Inappropriate authorship on students paper

  23. Possible overlapping publications/data

  24. Transparency of peer review to co-authors

    Case number: 
    11-22
    Year: 
    2011
    Resolution: 
    Case Closed
  25. Duplicate publication in possibly four papers

Pages