Discussion documents

This paper aims to stimulate discussion about the sharing of imformation among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct in their journals. This guidance has been drafted following a COPE Discussion Forum, in the wake of a number of highprofile cases of research misconduct in which the sharing of information between the relevant editors-inchief (EiCs) was crucial to the final settlement of…

…Predatory publishing: next steps and where do we go from here? Since COPE drafted a discussion paper on the topic of predatory publishing in 2019, many more scholarly papers have been published on various aspects of this issue so there is no lack of research into t…

The COPE predatory publishing discussion document introduces issues, and analyses potential solutions, around predatory publications. COPE welcomes comments which add to this ongoing debate. Common features of the phenomenon include deception and lack of quality controls, and there are a range of warning signs to look for when assessing a journal. Problems for authors, readers, and other…

Predatory publishing is generally defined as for-profit open access journal publication of scholarly articles without the benefit of peer review by experts in the field or the usual editorial oversight of the journals in question. The journals have no standards and no quality control and frequently publish within a very brief period of time while claiming that articles are peer-reviewed. There…

Background On occasion a journal may get not one, but a series of complaints from the same source. Complaints may be directed at an author, an editor, or the journal in general. If these complaints turn out to be well founded, investigations should proceed as warranted. However, there are also cases where a complainant makes repeated allegations against a journal, editor, or author that…

This paper aims to stimulate discussion about how editors should respond to emails from whistle blowers. We encourage journal editors and publishers to comment (whether or not they are COPE members), and also welcome comments from researchers/authors and academic institutions. Please send us comments. http://publicationethics.org/contact-us

The tragic suicide of Yoshiki Sasai, one of the authors of the retracted STAP stem-cell paper (discussed in the Letter from the Chair in the August 2014 edition of COPE Digest), highlights the fact that, above all, the communication of research is about people and about trust. Some researchers are seemingly able to bounce back from a finding of serious research misconduct. For example, Hwang Wo…

The topic for discussion at this Forum was ‘How should a journal deal with persistent complainers?’ Background Every so often a journal may get not one, but a series of complaints from the same source. These complaints may be directed at an author, an editor, or the journal in general. If these complaints turn out to be well founded, obviously there is a serious p…

Background Recent high profile cases of research misconduct have relied upon the sharing of relevant information among the Editors-in-Chief of the journals concerned during the months and years leading up to the final settlement of the cases (see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…

The topic for discussion at this Forum was ‘Electronic Responses to Blogs and Journal Articles’. Specifically, what are the issues, in terms of publication ethics, surrounding blogs where journals are the target of concerted 'attacks' by the proponents of one particular viewpoint, and are there appropriate guidelines on managing such situations?…