- Flowcharts
What to do if you suspect image manipulation in a published article
COPE's guidance in the form of a flowchart on what to do if you suspect that images in a published article have been manipulated.… - 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
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
Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript
What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication in a published manuscript. The instructions to authors should state the journal’s policy on redundant publication. Asking authors to sign a statement or tick a box may be helpful in subsequent investigations. ICMJE advises that translations are acceptable but MUST reference the original. Editors may consid… - Guidelines
Guidelines for retracting articles
Summary Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if: they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error) the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justif… - Case
Possible plagiarism
2019We received an email from a whistleblower notifying us about possible plagiarism in two chapters published by us, both authored by the same two authors. The whistleblower accused the authors of substantial plagiarism. In both chapters there were, indeed, certain unattributed parts of the text, although the majority was properly attributed. Some of the unattributed parts were authored by… - CaseOn-going
Dispute arising from peer review of a rejected comment and published correction
2019In 2016, group A published manuscript X in our journal. In early 2017, group B submitted a comment critical of the published manuscript. Following peer review, in accordance with the journal’s then active policy, the comment was rejected from further consideration. The policy allowed for the author of the original article to be one of the peer reviewers of the comment. The lead author of… - CaseOn-going
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
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… - 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
License for using a published scale
2018A researcher has published a paper in our journal using a scale published in 2008. She wrote to the scale developer in 2014/2015 at least three times (emails are on file) before the start of the project, but the scale developer did not respond despite repeated email reminders. No indication of the need for a license was received. In 2017, when the researcher published the paper using the above… - 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
Pre-publication in a discussion paper series
2017A 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… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 26 February 2018: Expressions of concern
…How should journals use expressions of concern? They are “used to raise awareness to a possible problem in an article”. They are a relatively new, rare, and non-standardized type of editorial notice compared to corrections or retractions and “considerable differences in policy and practice remain between journals”. Journals are grappling with when expressions of concern are appropriate and wh… - CaseOn-going
Unhelpful institution report
2017An allegation of data fraud was not satisfactorily resolved by correspondence with the authors. We then went to the lead institution and asked for an investigation. Within 10 days we had a report clearing the authors, but interestingly using some of the exact same phrases the authors used in their responses to us. We felt that the report was too superficial and approached the other institution… - CaseCase Closed
Potential figure manipulation with corresponding author uncontactable
2017A reader contacted the journal to raise concerns about a paper containing a potentially manipulated figure. The editor-in-chief agreed with the assessment that the figure had been manipulated and attempted to contact the corresponding author, without response. Following further contact with the co-authors and institution, it was established that the corresponding author had retired after public… - CaseCase Closed
Withdrawing from authorship
2017A journal published a paper that is now under investigation by the host institution for misconduct. All authors signed that they agreed authorship and took responsibility for the content of the paper. After the investigations started, an author asked to be removed from authorship. Questions for the COPE Forum• What should the journal do in this situation? • Should th… - CaseCase Closed
Submission of an already published case report
2017A case report was received at the journal. A covering letter was supplied by the two authors stating “Our work has not been published elsewhere and we have been actively involved in the preparation of the paper. No conflict of interest. Not published elsewhere. Patient consent obtained for case report and images to be published”. Originality is very highly graded in the referee’s marking… - CaseCase Closed
Satire in scholarly publishing
2017An intentional satire of a randomised controlled trial was published in a journal. In addition to multiple overt clues that the article was fake in the text, the article ended with a clear and direct statement in the acknowledgments that it was satire. Investigators conducting a systematic review on the topic inadvertently included the satire article in their review as a legitimate manus…