- Flowcharts
How to recognise potential authorship problems
How to recognise potential authorship problems. Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship as well as processes for managing potential disputes.… - Flowcharts
Systematic manipulation of the publication process
Manipulation of the publication process is a relatively new form of misconduct affecting the publishing industry. These guidelines represent an important first step towards encouraging openness and collaboration between publishers to address this phenomenon. Systematic manipulation of the publication process is where an individual or a group of individuals have repeatedly used dis… - 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
How to spot authorship problems
Editors cannot police author or contributor listings for every submission but may sometimes have suspicions that an author list is incomplete or includes undeserving (guest or gift) authors. The COPE flowchart 'Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship' suggests actions for these situations. The points in th… - Flowcharts
Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship
COPE's guidance as a flowchart on what to do if you suspect ghost, guest, or gift authorship.… - 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
Corresponding author requests removal of author before publication
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do for changes in authorship. Part (b): The corresponding author requests removal of an author before publication. It is most important to check with the author(s) whose name(s) is/are being removed from the paper and get their agreement in writing. Other flowcharts in this series: Part a) - Flowcharts
Request for addition of extra author after publication
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on Changes in authorship, Part (c) A request is received for the addition of an extra author after publication. To prevent future problems: Before publication, get authors to sign statement that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. Publish details of ea… - Flowcharts
Request for removal of author after publication
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on Changes in authorship, Part (d) A request is received for the removal of an author after publication. Ask why the author wishes to be removed from list – refer to journal guidelines orthe authorship declaration which should state that all authors meet the appropriate criteria. Ask if author suspects fraud or misconduct. Other flowcharts… - Flowcharts
Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on changes in authorship, Part (a) The corresponding author requests the addition of an extra author before publication. Major changes in response to reviewer comments, e.g. adding new data might justify the inclusion of a new author. Other flowcharts in this series: Part b) - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2019: Women also know history
Karin Wulf, Professor of History and well-known “Chef” in the Scholarly Kitchen introduced us to the terms “manels” and “whanels” (all male panels and all white panels) and provided some suggestions to help identify a more diverse group of experts from which to draw authors, reviewers, editorial board memb… - CaseOn-going
Duplicate submission and authorship dispute
2019A case report was submitted to our journal (journal X) in February and accepted for publication in September that same year. In late September, the first author on the manuscript contacted us to inform us that this exact case report had just been published in another journal (journal Y) by some of his colleagues, including some of the authors of our manuscript. In the initial submission to our… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2019: Ethical challenges in the arts, humanities, and social sciences
At the North American seminar 2019, Kath Burton (Associate Editorial Director of Arts & Humanities, Routledge, Taylor & Francis) presented the initial research findings and the solution put together on the back of some research conducted by COPE, supported by Routledge. The aim of the research was to better understand the publication ethics needs of arts, humanities and social sc… - 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
Victim of article theft wants correction to list their name, not retraction
2018Author A contacted us claiming that an article published in the journal recently by author B was stolen from an article author A had earlier submitted to two different publishers, publisher A in 2016 and publisher B in 2017. Author A provided the PDFs of the manuscripts they had submitted to those other publishers. The version submitted to us 2018 by author B was very similar to that submitted… - CaseCase Closed
Peer reviewer contacted by author
2018In a single blind peer review process, a reviewer gave an author detailed suggestions about improvements in the statistical analysis. The author was asked to revise and resubmit the paper to address these and other reviewers' suggestions. The author, unaware of the reviewer’s identity, subsequently approached the reviewer as a respected colleague at a professional meeting to discuss the manuscr… - CaseCase Closed
Authorship conflict
2018Author 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… - CaseOn-going
Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute
2018After publication of an article, Author A contacted the journal asking to correct their surname. Author A’s name consists of two parts, but only one was included in the publication. The editor accepted this request but asked all authors to agree to publication of an erratum. Author B (the corresponding author) immediately replied, disagreeing with publication of such an erratum. Author A inform… - CaseCase Closed
Dispute between two authors
2018A manuscript was submitted by author A to our journal. The content of the paper was controversial. We sent this manuscript for peer review by two clinical reviewers. We wrote back to author A requesting major revisions to address the concerns and issues raised by the reviewers. A revised paper was submitted and accepted for publication. Because the article was controversial, mini-comment… - CaseOn-going
Stolen article
2017At acceptance but before publication, we found article A submitted to journal A was highly similar to article B, published 5 months earlier in conference proceedings in journal B by another publisher. The abstracts were nearly identical, but the author lists and affiliations did not overlap. We asked the authors to explain this and they said article A is their own work, but it was inadvertently…