- Flowcharts
What to do if you suspect peer review manipulation
COPE's flowchart on what to do if you suspect peer review manipulation discovered either during or after the peer review process.… - Flowcharts
General approach to publication ethics for the Editorial Office
A guide detailing the suggested approach to the organisation of the Editorial Office in order to comply with COPE’s Core Practices. COPE has many resources to assist publishers and editors in making decisions about ethical issues in publication, including guidelines, - Flowcharts
Responding to Whistleblowers - concerns raised via social media
COPE's guidelines, as a flowchart, on how to respond to whistleblowers when concerns are raised about a published article on a social media site. How should you respond when a published article is criticised on social media or a post-publication peer review site(s)? The criticism could include anonymous or not anonymous concerns about scientific soundness or allegations of plagiarism, fi… - Flowcharts
Responding to Whistleblowers - concerns raised directly
How should you respond when concerns are raised by a whistleblower about a published article directly via email to the editor or publisher? This could include anonymous or not anonymous concerns about scientific soundness or allegations of plagiarism, figure manipulation or other forms of misconduct.… - Flowcharts
English: all flowcharts
For ease of use, we have gathered together here all of COPE's flowcharts into one downloadable PDF file (18 pages): What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication (2 flowcharts) What to do if you suspect plagiarism (2 flowcharts) What to do if you suspect fabricated data (2 flowcharts) Changes in authorship (4 flowcharts) What to do i… - Flowcharts
What to do if you suspect an ethical problem
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do if you suspect an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript. … - Guidelines
Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct
…Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct Introduction This guidance has been drafted following a COPE Discussion Forum (4 September 2013) and - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2019: Just ideas? The Status and Future of Publication Ethics in Philosophy
At the 2019 COPE North American Seminar, Rebecca Kennison, from K|N Consultants, presented details of a project which "seeks to foster greater awareness among humanities scholars and editors about ethical issues in philosophy publishing…. [It] acknowledges that research and publication ethics in the humanities are in many ways, and for good reasons, complex matters and that, unlike in t… - CaseCase Closed
Suspected plagiarism
2019A single author submitted a paper to our journal. A similarity check revealed 48% similarity with another published paper. The published paper was by different authors—5 in total. The similarities between the papers were in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. The submitting author did not reference the published article. We queried the corresponding author but have not rec… - CaseCase Closed
Reviewer requesting addition of multiple citations of their own work
2019A handling editor noticed a reviewer report where the reviewer instructed the author to cite multiple publications by the same reviewer in their manuscript. The handling editor noted a similar instance involving this reviewer from the past and requested the editorial office to look into his reviewing history. This uncovered a concerning pattern of behaviour where the reviewer habitually asked a… - CaseCase Closed
Self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing
2018Journal A accepted a manuscript with six authors in June 2017, which was published in January 2018. Several months later, the editors of journal A found that journal B had published paper B, which shared striking similarities to paper A. Journal B accepted paper B in November 2017 and published it in February 2018. The first author of paper B was different but the remaining four authors were fr… - CaseCase Closed
A pre-submission inquiry with a bribe
2018We recently received a pre-submission inquiry from an author, who identified as being fairly inexperienced with writing papers. At first glance it was a fairly standard pre-submission inquiry. The author mentioned the titles of two papers they allegedly had wrote and wondered whether we might be potentially interested in them. The author added that they had a colleague who would also be potenti… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 5 November 2018: Predatory Publishing
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… - CaseCase Closed
Are copyrighted conference audiotapes considered "prior publication"?
2018An editor received a query from an author: “Your guidelines are clear that presenting data at a society meeting does not preclude publication. But what if the society records the presentation, retains copyright of that recording, and posts it online? Is asking presenters to turn over copyright of a recording of data presented at a prepublication stage and disseminating the recording as they see… - CaseOn-going
Editor manipulation of impact factor
2018An editor in chief of a major medical journal in a specialty field is also an author. The editor submits a manuscript to a competing journal in the same field. The manuscript receives moderately favourable reviews and the authors are invited to respond to the reviewer input and submit a revised manuscript. In the communication from that journal's editor in chief, the authors are asked to cite a… - CaseCase Closed
Scientific misconduct claim from a whistleblower where the institution will not investigate
2018A 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… - CaseCase Closed
Editor and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work
2018A staff member in our editorial office noticed a decision letter where a handling editor instructed an author to cite an article published by the handling editor. The staff member wondered if this had happened before and reviewed recent decision letters by that editor. This revealed a concerning pattern of behaviour—the handling editor’s decision letters (including reviewers’ comments) asked au… - CaseCase Closed
Consequence for dual submission
2017An author submitted work to our journal (journal A) which, after two rounds of peer review, was accepted and published. One week after it was published, the editors of journal B contacted our journal stating that this work, with the exact same title, authors and content, had been submitted to journal B and, after receiving an acceptance letter, the author withdrew the paper, informing them that… - CaseCase Closed
Unethical withdrawal after acceptance to maximize the 'impact factor'?
2017We are a publisher with a portfolio of about 25 journals, with journal X being the flagship journal. Journal X has a high impact factor. We also publish a range of other, newer journals, some of which are ranked highly but most have no impact factor. An author submitted a manuscript to journal Y where it underwent peer review and was accepted after revisions. After acceptance, the autho… - Discussion documents
Addressing ethics complaints from complainants who submit multiple issues. March 2015
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…