- CaseCase Closed
Author cannot be located
A manuscript was submitted to a journal and after the review and revision process, it was accepted for publication. However, after the manuscript was accepted for publication, the coauthor stopped answering emails and therefore did not sign the copyright form, or affirm acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of authorship. The journal and production staff tried contacting the coauthor on… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 11 November 2019: Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making
…could/should be used. COPE members discussed these ethical issues in the COPE Forum. Read the discussion in the pdf and send us your feedback and… - Case
Confidentiality and conflict of interest
A paper reporting an attitudinal study was sent for peer review. The editor received a letter from the reviewer stating that as he was personally acknowledged in the paper, he felt there was a conflict of interest and so unable to review the paper. The reviewer also pointed out that the research in question was part of a larger commissioned project with strict conditions of confidentiality. Th… - Translated resources
What constitutes authorship? (Chinese)
…href="http://publicationethics.org/contact-us">http://publicationethics.org/contact-us For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3 Related resource Authorship discussion document English… - Flowcharts
Chinese: all flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in Chinese For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | - Flowcharts
Croatian: all flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in Croatian For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | - Flowcharts
French: all flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in French. For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: - Flowcharts
Italian: all flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in Italian For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: - Flowcharts
Japanese: all flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in Japanese For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: - Flowcharts
Persian: 14 flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in Persian For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: - Flowcharts
Polish: all flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in Polish For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: - Flowcharts
Turkish: all flowcharts
…This is COPE's flowcharts in Turkish For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: - Flowcharts
Spanish: All flowcharts
…COPE's flowcharts in Spanish For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: - Case
Redundant publication?
…follow-up. The only new feature in the journal A paper is that all the women have a level of index greater than 1 standard deviation below the mean. The journal B study included those between -2.2 and +2.0 standard deviations. There was therefore some overlap of the inclusion criteria in the two trials. The journal A paper does not make explicitly clear whether the women described form part of a subgroup… - CaseOn-going
Should we retract a published paper with a high similarity match?
The journal published an original article in 2022. Recently, we received feedback from a third party that the paper is similar to the authors' other work published in 2019. The duplicate rate of the initial submission was 31% and the final version was 24% which is within the journal’s standard. The concern was that the paper may not add value as the authors have already published similar… - Discussion documents
Preprints
…their place in the publication ethics landscape panel discussion at WCRI, 2019 Your feedback COPE welcomes feedback from publishers, journal editors, preprint platforms, researchers, librarians, funders, and other stakeholders on this subject. Add your feedback below.… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 11 February 2019: Diversity and inclusion in research publishing
It is widely recognised that teams and organisations in all sectors of society perform better and make better decisions when they embrace diversity and inclusion in their culture and, particularly, among their leadership. Diversity refers to having a wide range of human differences in the composition of a team. Inclusion, inclusivity, or inclusiveness refers to ensuring that all team members fe… - CaseCase Closed
Wrong version of article published. Should we retract?
The incorrect PDF version of an article was published together with the correct HTML, XML and EPUB versions. The variations between the PDF and other versions are language editing related, and do not affect the scientific value or scientific nature of the article. Questions for COPE Council Given that two version of the article exists, should the journal retract th… - Research
No study’s perfect: a cross-disciplinary analysis of published errata 2011
…existing studies on errata are small, limited in scope and rather different in methods and aims. We will conduct the first large quantitative analysis of errata published in all disciplines. These will be retrieved and sampled from the over 11,000 journals listed in the Essential Science Indicators database, which classifies journals in 22 broad disciplines. By combining quantitative and… - Case
A claim of stolen data and a demand for retractions
The publishers received an email from author B about a recently published paper, which passed peer review and had been available online for about a month. In this email, author B claimed that he and another colleague C had determined the peptide sequence in question and had not published it yet, nor given permission for it to be published. He claimed that author A had access to his unpublished…