You are here

Case

COPE Members may submit cases for consideration. Please search here before submitting a case to check if similar cases have already been discussed.

Submit a case

Filter by topic

Showing 1–20 of 185 results
  • Case

    Publishing complications and patient safety

    2019
    Journal A is dedicated to communication about practical treatments related directly to patient and personal experiences. These ongoing discussions have been part of this specific medical profession for the past 50 years and journal A is a platform for these discussions. Regarding new treatments and new developments, permission from the local medical ethical commission is mandatory as wel…
  • Case
    On-going

    Authorship issue related to misleading action of one author

    2019
    Our journal received a manuscript which was a report of an evaluation and enhancement of an online clinical decision support system (CDS) for a specific population at risk of a disease. The online CDS had been developed by a national agency with a mission to support health promotion and disease prevention activities. Evaluation of the CDS was supported through contracts and sub-contracts. The f…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Authorship conflict

    2018
    Author A contacted our journal following publication of a manuscript claiming that he was the rightful author. We asked the author for proof and he said that he had all of the data concerning the patient because he received the operative specimen and made the diagnosis. Author A said he also collaborated in writing the article with author B and hence was surprised that neither his name nor his…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Scientific misconduct claim from a whistleblower where the institution will not investigate

    2018
    A journal received an allegation of scientific misconduct from an anonymous individual stating they were from the group that had written the paper (Institution-1, there are two institutions involved in this research). The email stated that the scientific bases of the article were unreliable. The paper was currently with the authors who were revising the paper after the first round of review, an…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Retrospective registration, outcome switching and ethical approval

    2018
    Journal A received a number of concerns from a reader regarding a paper published in the journal. These concerns were reviewed and sent to the authors of a paper, along with additional comments from the editorial board. The concern was largely around retrospective registration, and an inconsistency between the trial registry record and the published paper. An editorial board member conducted a…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Ethics of non-active management of a control group

    2017
    An article was submitted involving over 200 pregnant patients with a systemic illness (from 2010 to 2015) who were recruited and assigned to a control group or an active intervention group (of their systemic illness). The control group received routine antenatal care while the intervention group had active surveillance and management of their systemic illness during the pregnancy. There…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Service evaluation as research in a controversial area of medicine

    2017
    We received an email from a reader relating to the ethics statement in a research article published in 2011. The article presented data collected at a clinic relating to a controversial area in medicine. The ethics statement in the article indicates that, in accordance with regional guidelines, the research ethics committee deemed that the study was a service evaluation and formal ethical revie…
  • Case
    On-going

    Authorship dispute and possible unreported protocol amendment

    2016
    Our journal accepted a randomised controlled trial for publication which has not yet been published online. In the submitted paper, the randomised controlled trial is described as commencing in 2004 with completion in 2011. We have received an email and telephone call from an individual not listed as an author or reviewer of the paper with the following alleged disputes:• He was an invest…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Parental consent for participants

    2016
    As editor of a psychology journal, I received a manuscript from a group of scholars. The authors describe a qualitative online study with adolescent girls, aged 15–18 years, who met in person with a stranger they first ‘met’ online. The girls describe their reasoning about the risks, the safety measures they used and reactions to discomfort they experienced in the meetings. The authors n…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Low risk study with no ethics committee approval

    2016
    A manuscript was submitted to our journal that describes a social media advocacy campaign that was run by an international NGO for the purpose of eliciting public support for a new law in a low-middle income country. The authors are from the NGO and the government department in that country, that together funded and ran the campaign, and also collected and analysed the data used in the manuscri…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Data anonymity

    2016
    A paper was submitted to our journal. The managing editor was concerned about patient information in the paper and queried the authors. The authors responded that the data were collected from routine samples and so consent was never obtained. The patients were lost to follow-up, and there was no ethics committee approval as it involved the study of existing data, but they did discuss with the i…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Ethics committee approval

    2015
    We routinely ask for ethics committee approval from every research manuscript submitted to our journal. Sometimes, studies from different countries may not have ethics committee approval and authors may claim that their study does not need approval. In such situations, we consult COPE’s “Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations” document and evaluate the study at the editor…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    The ethics of self-experimentation

    2015
    The author was the subject of his study. He depleted himself of a vital nutrient until he had overt clinical and biochemical signs of the deficiency. He monitored various biochemical parameters as he became more deficient and submitted two manuscripts presenting his results: one detailing the biochemical changes and one detailing the differences in results obtained from different commercially a…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Institutional review board approval required?

    2014
    We have a query regarding institutional review board (IRB) approval for a paper in production. The paper reports on a 2 year follow-up and cost-effectiveness evaluation for a treatment programme. A previously published paper reports on the original evaluation of the treatment programme. The authors have not obtained IRB approval for either body of research. The initial research wa…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Institutional review board approval needed?

    2014
    A graduate student submitted a paper to a journal and noted that in her country, unless the research is directly medical, institutional review board (IRB) approval is not required or completed. The journal has a policy of requiring IRB approval on any human subjects’ research. This study was looking at practitioners and their work with students having a particular diagnosis. The editor r…
  • Case
    On-going

    Fraud or sloppiness in a submitted manuscript

    2014
    In June 2014 we received a manuscript by four authors from a well known research institution. They described a randomized trial comparing a variation in a procedure with standard care. In total, 200 patients were randomized, 100 to each arm. As measured by an interview, patients undergoing the new procedure were statistically significantly more content than those in the control arm. This manusc…
  • Case
    On-going

    Ethical concerns about a study involving human subjects

    2013
    A manuscript was submitted to our journal describing a study of a new drug. The manuscript had only one author who gave their affiliation as a company that we can find no record of online. It describes a study in which they appear to have developed a new drug, carried out a toxicology study in mice and then, because no adverse effects were seen, tested it on one patient and five healthy volunte…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Findings of a published trial called into question by a subsequent audit of trial conduct

    2013
    In 2008, our journal published a phase 2 randomised controlled trial of a new medicine. In 2011, the regulatory authority in the country where the study was performed decided to undertake routine monitoring of completed studies and this trial was selected for random inspection. The author informed the journal of the inspection and provided a translation of the report (independently verified as…
  • Case
    On-going

    Ethical concerns and the validity of documentation supplied by the authors

    2013
    We became concerned that not all of the co-authors were aware of a research paper submitted to our journal due to the difficulty receiving responses from the email addresses that had been supplied and their nature, given that the authors all worked in a hospital/academic institution. Despite repeated requests and attempts we remained dissatisfied with the responses and did not feel certain that…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Inadequate assurance of human research ethics for a questionnaire

    2012
    A questionnaire was distributed to knowledge workers in an organisation to investigate the following hypotheses: — H1.There is a positive and significant relationship between ethics and organizational performance.— H2. There is a positive and significant relationship between ethics and intellectual capital.— H3. There is a positive and significant relationship between intelle…

Pages