Showing 151–175 of 586 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. Case of figure duplication and manipulation involving two journals

  2. An enquiry about arbitrating reviewers

    Case number: 
    Case Closed
  3. Lack of trial registration leads to new concerns about study conduct and ethical review/approval

  4. Duplicate publication and alleged image manipulation

  5. Mislabelling/duplicate images

  6. Late introduction of an omitted author after online publishing

  7. Retractions of primary literature papers: how should a review journal react?

  8. WAME case

  9. Data fabrication, lack of ethical approval, withdrawal of paper and publication in another journal

  10. Possible conflict of interest

  11. Plagiarism of reviewer's work

  12. Author of rejected letter blames global bias against his message and undisclosed conflicts of interest

  13. Duplicated gel images

  14. Author of rejected letter to the editor blames global bias against his message and undisclosed conflicts of interest

    Case number: 
  15. Submissions from members of the editorial board

  16. Author misconduct

  17. Authorship order dispute

  18. Nuisance author

  19. Breach of peer review confidentiality

  20. No ethics committee approval of a study

  21. Falsified references

  22. Claim from an author that his name should not have been included as author on a paper

  23. Authorship dispute

  24. Lack of acknowledgement of contributor

  25. A claim of stolen data and a demand for retractions