- CaseOn-going
Unauthorised reviewer challenges
…submission system and which included all of the author details. In total, the email is estimated to have been received by around 440 individuals. One of the recipients of the email contacted the society’s editorial office (EO) to report what had happened. The EO contacted the editor-in-chief and handling editor of the paper to see if they knew anything about the situation, but the reviewer had not… - CaseOn-going
Authorship dispute and possible unreported protocol amendment
…investigator on the trial between 2004 and 2008.• He analysed the data from this study in 2008 which were published as an MD thesis in 2010 with the institution at which the study was carried out with the trial protocol possibly changed after that time. The results were submitted to a journal but the submission was rejected and was not submitted elsewhere.• He is not listed as an author of the… - Case
Reviewer misconduct?
…indeed reviewed the paper for journal A, and the date on which he/she had first been sent the paper preceded that of his/her own submission to journal B. The steps of our investigation were as follows: The aggrieved author was asked to provide additional details on which aspect of his work he/she suspected of being unethically used, and he/she identified a particular paragraph in journal B’s… - CaseCase Closed
Handling undisclosed peer reviewer conflict
…without change so looked up this reviewer and found a manuscript in press at another journal where the reviewer, as an author, disclosed relationships with the same company the authors work at. These included honoraria, consultant fees, and advisory board participation. The manuscript in press indeed was about the same drug covered in the submission. The reviewer answered "no" to the question asked… - CaseCase Closed
Late addition of new author to article
…Institution for additional information) or disallow the addition. The editor could also suggest that an acknowledgement may be more appropriate than authorship. Some journals require each author’s contribution be identified on submission, and this could be a process the journal could put in place so that this issue does not occur in the future. But even if it not the norm for the journal to ask about… - CaseCase Closed
Corrigendum or erratum?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance. The editor should go back to the original submission to… - CaseCase Closed
Where should journals escalate serious concerns about an institution or institutional review board?
A publisher received a submission to one of their journals that raised ethical concerns. The concerns were related to potential harm or undue risk for participants who may be vulnerable. The publisher reviewed the ethics approval statement, and the authors had met the journal’s policy requirements by prospectively obtaining ethics approval from their institution before beginning the… - CaseCase Closed
Publication of private data
The authors were allowed to continue with the submission and the paper is now undergoing peer review.… - Case
What constitutes authorship?
…occur again. Permission to publish should be obtained from all authors on submission of the paper for publication.… - Case
Plagiarism
…made to the source. If warranted, however, the corresponding author would take action regarding present and future submissions from this author. New procedures would also be put into place to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate event. Finally, the corresponding author felt that a positive aspect of this incident was that it demonstrated the high calibre of the reviewers, and thanked them for… - Case
The single authored, unbelievable, randomised controlled trial
…another approach. Though the paper has never been formally rejected or withdrawn, a very similar paper has been published, raising the issue of duplicate submission of the paper.… - CaseCase Closed
Possible peer review manipulation
…reviewers ensuring they clearly outline the expectations of reviewers. Does the journal have an explicit ethics statement on their website regarding the peer review process or are authors required to agree with an ethics statement on the website at submission? The editor may wish to educate the authors and reviewers, to help them understand why it is necessary to adhere to the high standards of the peer… - CaseCase Closed
Is there a time limit for submitting a critique of a published article?
…the time period for submission of comments had passed. A second letter was sent to the corresponding author, drawing their attention to the fact that it was not just a matter of a concern raised by a reader, but a serious issue with the interpretation of the results which could mislead other researchers. The editor feels the article needs to be corrected, and action must be taken, which may… - CaseCase Closed
Author admits failure to credit other authors
…retracted. Whether the article is republished with another author list is another issue that would need to be resolved but it would mean that the research is not lost but the authorship is corrected. For future submissions, the journal may wish to update their instructions to authors to state that a signed statement by all of the authors is required on submission, recognising the order of authorship, that… - CaseCase Closed
Pre-publication in a discussion paper series
A submission in the economics field to an interdisciplinary social science journal was accepted, following full external review. Subsequently, the publisher wrote to the author stating that during editorial checks, it had come to their attention that a full manuscript of a paper with the same name was available in a discussion paper series and kindly asked that this version be removed from the… - CaseCase Closed
Author requests permission to publish review comments
…reviews and a commentary on the issues raised, prior to submission to a journal with open peer review. The author requested the journal’s consent for the review comments to be made public under CC licence. We declined permission to publish the reviews and explained that the journal operates a confidential single blind review process. Reviewers are informed that their names will not be revealed to… - CaseOn-going
Compromised peer review system in published papers
On noticing a high volume of submissions from corresponding author A, editor X flagged up concerns with the preferred reviewers being suggested and their comments. Author A had in most cases suggested the same preferred reviewers for each submission, preferred reviewer accounts had non-attributable email addresses, comments were being returned very quickly (within 24 hours) and were often… - CaseCase Closed
How to correct an incorrect decision to publish a flawed paper
…was processed before we started using online submission, and the reviewers’ and editor’s reports no longer exist. We believe that this inconsistency would justify a notice of correction to the original paper, by the criteria in the COPE guidelines. However, the case does not fit the usual pattern because we are not responding to new information but to a realisation that we made a mistake and… - Case
An attempt to publish data already published elsewhere
…publication (the other reviewer recommended rejection for other reasons). The Instructions to Authors states clearly: “Submission of a paper implies that it reports unpublished work and that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.” I wrote to all of the authors by email explaining the decision and asking for an explanation. I received no reply. After a suitable period… - CaseCase Closed
A systematic review on a country’s health problem written by non-native authors
Journal A received a submission which focused on a systematic review/meta-analysis of a health problem in a specific country. It was written by four authors who do not live in that country. In addition, none of the authors seem to have any professional affiliation with any institution or researchers in that country. The systematic review/meta-analysis was based on published references and did…