- CaseOn-going
Excessive self-citation in a book chapter
The case concerns an introductory chapter in a book. The publisher was first contacted about potential misconduct as part of a broader investigation into an academic who was a coauthor on an introductory chapter in a book. The publisher's subsequent investigation identified excessive self-citation in the work (one of the coauthors is named as an author on 12 out of 16 referenced works).… - CaseOn-going
Data fabrication, lack of ethical approval, withdrawal of paper and publication in another journal
…such possible misconduct. Essentially the complexity lies in the triangle between two journals and two institutions as well as in the possibility that two aspects may be wrong: the ethics and the data. The change in authorship for the same manuscript in the two submissions is also significant. Even though the paper was withdrawn from my journal, should I pursue the matter with the relevant officers… - CaseCase Closed
Author non-disclosure by editor in chief
Please note, this case is being submitted by the Publishing Director of the journal based on the advice of a senior COPE member because it relates to the conduct of the editor in chief of the journal. The editor in chief of the journal is aware that the case is being submitted. A letter of complaint was submitted in November 2009 relating to an editorial published in one of our journals,… - Case
Concern about reporting of a trial and also its DSMB
Some of the members of the Forum suggested that perhaps the journal should have a formal policy that DSMBs should be independent and not involved in the study in any way. The Forum questioned whether these authors fulfil the criteria for authorship, as outlined in the ICJME guidelines. One opinion was that perhaps the paper should not have been rejected until the outcome of the investigation… - Case
Sanitising a misleading statement
Author A published a paper in Journal X, which presented evidence of failure by another research group to declare a serious conflict of interest in a paper that had been published some years before in Journal Y. This conflict of interest centred around the undeclared involvement of a third party with a vested interest. Evidence for this was presented in the form of correspondence from the third… - CaseCase Closed
Seven plagiarized manuscripts in one month by the same corresponding author
In one month we have received 11 manuscripts (9 case reports, 1 original study and 1 letter) written by authors from a European Union country. The manuscripts were submitted by the same corresponding author (author A) who was also the first author in all of the 11 manuscripts. Another author was the second author (author B) in 10 of the manuscripts. There were two other authors (authors C and D… - Case
Arm twisting an editor
_ If junior authors could not publish without the consent of their superiors, this raises the matter of authorship, whereby some of the authors are not acknowledged for their work, whether for credit or accountability to the readers. _ The work itself might be regarded differently because the source of the information would not be clear. In some ways this was analogous to pharmaceutical… - Case
Declaration of contributorship
An online post-publication literature evaluation service, aiming to highlight the best articles in medicine, received an evaluation of an article whose authors were based at the same institution as the evaluator. The editor asked the contributor if he/she had any involvement in the study and received the following response: “I am based at the university but did not participate in the design of… - Case
Author dispute concerning ownership of data
A paper submitted to Journal X was reviewed and rejected with the recommendation that it be submitted to a more clinical journal. The paper was duly submitted to Journal Y. The authorship was A, B, C, D and E, with E being the corresponding author linking together two research groups in different cities, but in the same country. Journal Y sent the paper to reviewers and, after discussion,… - CaseOn-going
Editor as author of a paper
The Forum agreed this was a failure of journal processes and the editor in chief must take responsibility for this. The change was not detected but there should be processes in place when any change in the authorship of a paper is noted. Authors should be required to clearly state when any changes in authorship are made after the initial submission, and the journal needs to ensure it tightens… - Case
Triplicate publication with possibly different data in each
…been done correctly. However, they did not think that any sanctions were necessary, but they revised their guidelines on authorship.… - CaseCase Closed
Transparency of peer review to co-authors
…corresponding author. This may prevent some cases of guest authorship arising. However, the Forum agreed that publishers may edit reviewers’ comments before sending them to authors if they contain rude or libellous remarks. The publisher should keep the original reviewer comments on file for internal use but it is acceptable to send a ‘cleaned up’ version to the authors.… - Case
Who ensures the integrity of the editor?
…that it was at odds with the definition of authorship by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).The editor-in-chief ignored these concerns. Shortly thereafter, the association’s CEO announced that no letters should be published in the association’s journal that criticised association policy. The editor-in-chief initially stated to the journal staff that he disagreed with this… - CaseCase Closed
Meta-analysis: submission of unreliable findings
A meta-analysis was conducted of about 1000 patients included in a number of small trials of a drug for emergency management administered by route X compared with route Y. The report concluded that administration by route X improves short term survival. Chronology The paper was submitted to our journal in September 2011 and after peer review was retur… - Case
Request for a retraction of a retraction
…different standards of collecting and assessing evidence, and reaching a judgment, and because the author of the retracted paper has admitted three types of misconduct, our journal is not minded to retract the retraction. A remaining option is to ask the retracted author why he made those admissions. A sticky point for our journal is that, despite published letters that disown authorship… - Case
Duplicate publication
In 2003 a paper was published in a specialist surgical journal following proper peer review. The paper summarised the experience of a group of clinicians concerned in treating malignancy in the Head and Neck using a novel method of therapy - and was a case series of 25 patients. The paper was not considered to be one of high priority but was published because of the paucity of information con… - Case
Plagiarism in a systematic review
…specific aspect of the previously published review, but the format is identical and large portions of the text are either directly copied or only slightly modified from that review. The authors refer to the previous review in their introduction but do not attribute any of the copied material to it. There is no overlap in authorship between the two reviews. Even if… - CaseCase Closed
Lack of ethical approval and not reporting experimental evidence
In May 2011 a letter from the Vice-Rector for Personnel of a reputable university was sent to the editor mentioning that two articles published in the journal contained two statements not supported by documented evidence. The two statements related to: (1) approval of the local ethics committee and (2) representation of the experimental evidence. With regard to point (1), the authors sta… - Case
Competing interest issue
An online post-publication literature evaluation service, aiming to highlight the best articles in medicine, received an evaluation of an article on which the evaluator was listed as an author on PubMed. The editor queried the evaluation and the evaluator replied explaining s/he had no involvement with the study but had commented on it. When the editor looked at the full text HTML version on th… - CaseCase Closed
A systematic review on a country’s health problem written by non-native authors
…authorship/conflict of interest declarations and check for possible bias in the text or analyses. The authors’ reasons for doing the study could also be examined. It might also be worth checking the research track records or stated jobs and institutions of the authors. However, as the paper is not a primary research paper (ie, the authors are not gathering the data in country) there is no issue here. A suggestion…