- Translated resources
El editor y los revisores solicitan que se cite su trabajo: caso
La oficina editorial tuvo conocimiento de una carta de decisión en la que un editor solicitaba a un autor que citase un artículo publicado por el propio editor. Una investigación en mayor profundidad destapó un patrón de comportamiento preocupante: el editor solicitaba en las cartas (incluidos también los comentarios de los revisores) que se añadiesen citaciones de sus trabajos en más de 50 cas… - Translated resources
Proceso de revisión por pares comprometido en artículos publicados: caso
Al percatarse de un alto volumen de envíos del autor A, el editor X mostró su preocupación sobre los revisores sugeridos por el autor y sus comentarios. El autor A había sugerido en la mayoría de los casos los mismos revisores para todos los envíos, los revisores sugeridos tenían direcciones de correo electrónico imposibles de verificar, los comentarios se devolvían muy rápido (en 24 horas) y e… - Translated resources
El autor de un artículo rechazado nombra y critica de forma pública al revisor por pares: caso
El autor principal de un artículo rechazado para su publicación identificó y nombró de forma pública a uno de los cuatro revisores durante una entrevista con los medios de comunicación tras publicar el artículo en otra revista. El autor dio a entender en la entrevista y más tarde en Twitter que el artículo había sido rechazado por la revisión de este revisor y afirmó que el revisor no había rev… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 15 December 2020: Predatory publishing
…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… - CaseCase Closed
How to respond to a reader's repeated concerns
A meta-analysis was published in a journal ahead of print, and then subsequently in print. Several months later, the journal was contacted by a faculty member at a university not connected with the study. The reader outlined three general concerns with the meta-analysis. The concerns were discussed by the editorial team, including the statistical editor, and it was decided that the overall resu… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 4 September 2020: paper mills
Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills” Increasingly, across the research publishing landscape, publishers are seeing large scale manipulation of the publication process. The production of fraudulent papers at scale via alleged ‘paper mills’ is one such manipulation. Paper mills are profit oriented, unofficial and po… - CaseCase Closed
Is approval needed for a social media survey?
An author has contacted the journal enquiring about the need for institutional review board approval for a survey. The survey is not derived from a specific institution but rather out of the personal interest of the author(s) who are targeting a point of wide scientific interest. The authors have a broad reach in social media. The topic is of significant interest to the field, and there… - CaseCase Closed
Sharing by a reviewer on social media
A journal operated double blind peer-review, so the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa. However, the anonymity of the authors is not guaranteed, as the reviewers may discover the identity of the authors (because of the area of research, references, writing style, etc). But rarely can the authors identify the reviewers. The journal received a request from a… - CaseOn-going
Institution wants to retract despite ongoing legal proceedings
The case has been with two publishers for more than a year. Journal A at publisher A published article A by author A, affiliated to institution A and institution B (in another country), and author B affiliated to institution B. Journal B at publisher B then published article B, by the same authors and affiliations. The two articles are on closely related research. Shortly after publicati… - Discussion documents
Predatory publishing
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… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Exploring Publication Ethics Issues in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences
We set out to ask: •Are AHSS editors aware of COPE and how can we best communicate our services to them? •What issues are they dealing with that are problematic and what do they need in terms of support? •What is COPE not currently providing? Respondents were asked to report issues that were most widespread and frequent: 1) Addressing langu… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Analysis of retractions, initiators and reasons for retractions
Session on retractions at the European Seminar 2019 chaired by Heather Tierney, COPE Council, with presenter Thed Van Leeuwen, who shares the results of a study of all retracted papers published in journals processed for the Web of Science (WoS). Thed Van Leeuwen describes the reasons for retractions, motivation for retraction and who retracts. Catriona Fennell gives the publisher's perspective… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: COPE retraction guidelines
Session on retractions at the European Seminar 2019, with speaker Howard Browman who shares a review of the updated Retraction Guidelines from COPE. During the session we also heard from Thed Van Leeuwen and Catriona Fennell. Links to their presentations are below: Watch now - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Retractions, a publisher's perspective
Catriona Fennell, Director of Publishing Services, Elsevier gives a publisher's perspective, and shares her own experience, at this session on retractions at the COPE European Seminar 2019. Thed Van Leeuwen speaks about the scientometrics of retractions, and Howard Browman shares the latest on COPE's revised retraction guidelines. Watch now To hear Catriona Fennell's presentatio… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2019: In the aftermath of authorship violations in philosophy
Michael Dougherty, Professor of Philosophy, Ohio Dominican University speaks about authorship violations in philosophy including: using pseudonyms in philosophy and how to avoid post-publication pseudonym surprises. why we should be concerned about plagiarism, types of plagiarism in philosophy and what are the options for whistleblowers? What editors and publishers… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Plenary on predatory publishing
Perspectives on predatory publishing and thoughts about solutions with Deborah Poff, COPE Chair.… - Seminars and webinars
WCRI 2019: Preprints and their place in the publication ethics landscape
While preprints have existed in some disciplines for decades, preprints and preprint platforms are becoming more and more common across the entire landscape of publishing. The total output from preprints remains low in comparison to published journal articles, however, preprints are growing rapidly across many disciplines. Preprints also offer some interesting questions and potential concerns o… - CaseCase Closed
Withdrawal of paper at proof stage
An original paper was submitted to our journal. After peer review, the authors were requested to revise the paper, and the revision was submitted back to the journal. Our manuscript editor accepted the paper. The paper was scheduled for publication 3 months later after copyediting was completed. We informed the corresponding author about acceptance of the paper and sent them the typeset… - Research
Exploring publication ethics in the arts, humanities, and social sciences: A COPE study 2019
In early 2019 COPE, with the support of Routledge (part of the Taylor & Francis Group), commissioned primary research with Shift Learning to better understand the publication ethics landscape for editors working on journals within the arts, humanities, and social sciences. The research used a two-stage methodology: first exploring the issues qualitatively via two online focus groups with a… - 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…