Cases

Showing 151–175 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. Mislabelling/duplicate images

  2. Late introduction of an omitted author after online publishing

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

  4. WAME case

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

  6. Possible conflict of interest

  7. Plagiarism of reviewer's work

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

  9. Duplicated gel images

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

    Case number: 
    Year: 
    2010
    Resolution: 
    On-going
  11. Questionable ethics related to clinical trial raised by peer-reviewer

    sabinekleinert - 26th Oct 2017

    Case number:  10-34 Case text (Anonymised) You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right We received a paper describing a clinical trial comparing treatment X with treatment ... far a letter has not been received. Resolution:  Case Closed Year:  2010 Classifications:  Conflict ...

  12. Submissions from members of the editorial board

  13. Author misconduct

  14. Authorship order dispute

  15. Nuisance author

  16. Breach of peer review confidentiality

  17. No ethics committee approval of a study

  18. Falsified references

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

  20. Authorship dispute

  21. Lack of acknowledgement of contributor

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

  23. Retract, correct, or both?

  24. Suspect author

  25. Plagiarism of published paper

Pages