- Seminars and webinars
UK Seminar 2010: Cultural differences in plagiarism
…Download presentation: Cultural differences in plagiarism [PDF, 852 KB]… - Seminars and webinars
UK Seminar 2010: Plagiarism screening: An update from CrossCheck
…Download "Plagiarism screening: An update from CrossCheck" presentation [PDF, 6500KB]… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2015: Why do we need metrics, and what can new metrics offer editors and journals?
Download presentation: Why do we need metrics, and what can new metrics offer editors and journals? [PDF, 1460 KB]… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2015: Altmetric.com: who, what, when, where and why
…Download presentation: Altmetric.com: who, what, when, where and why [PDF, 2500KB]… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2015: Let’s all agree on what we’re counting and how: Progress on standards for new metrics in scholarship
…Download presentation: Let’s all agree on what we’re counting and how: Progress on standards for new metrics in scholarship [PDF, 4990KB]… - Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2015: Plagiarism—how to get it down
…Download presentation: Plagiarism—how to get it down [PDF, 239 KB]… - Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2015: Ethical peer review in a changing and challenging scholarly publication world
…Download presentation: Ethical peer review in a changing and challenging scholarly publication world [PDF, 998KB]… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2011: What is ORCID and Why is it Relevant for Editors?
…Download presentation: What is ORCID and Why is it Relevant for Editors? [PDF, 2410 KB] … - Seminars and webinars
UK Seminar 2010: Plagiarism in the electronic age
…Download the "Plagiarism in the electronic age" presentation [PDF, 2000KB, opens in new window] … - CaseCase Closed
Possible omission of information essential for conclusions in a research paper
In 2013, our journal published a paper describing an observational study comparing two drugs (A and B) for the management of a chronic disease over a period of 10 years. The conclusion in the paper was that mortality was higher in group A (97 deaths) compared with the other group B (52 deaths) (hazard ratio 1.76, 1.22 to 2.53; P=0.003). This analysis was done after adjustment for a large… - CaseOn-going
Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company
The Forum suggested there were two separate issues here—dealing with the author and dealing with the medical writer. Is the medical writer a member of any professional organization, such as the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), the European equivalent (EMWA) or the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP). If so, these organizations usually have a code of… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 12 March 2013: Text recycling
…for editors Text Recycling Research Project, update on the project March 2020 Understanding text recycling, COPE webinar 2020 with members of Text Recycling Research Project - CaseOn-going
Publication of data without permission
A director of an institute in France has expressed concern about a paper published in our journal. One of the authors (not the corresponding author) of the paper, person A, visited his laboratory in France for 5 months in 2009 to carry out some work. The director says that some methods used and results obtained in his laboratory have now been included in the paper without his knowledge or permi… - CaseCase Closed
Compromised peer review (unpublished)
…issue. Further advice: The case was also discussed at the North American Forum (18 October 2012). Additional advice was to require an institutional email address in addition to a webmail address for any suggested reviewers and for editors to send correspondence to both addresses. Another suggestion was to verify the webmail address with an IP address route trace, which the… - CaseCase Closed
Request to withdraw as an author of an accepted but unpublished paper
…specific details regarding the nature of her disagreement with PD. It turns out that it involved two data points (out of 22) in a supplementary analysis. AP and PD could not agree on the value of those data points. The editor then suggested to AP and PD that they re-do the supplementary analysis, based on the 20 scores that were not in dispute; if the pattern reported originally was confirmed in… - CaseCase Closed
Transparency of peer review to co-authors
An associate editor of one of our journals has asked whether we can configure our online peer review system to restrict access to reviewer correspondence to corresponding authors. His concern is that some of the review materials (eg, a harsh critique) might be embarrassing for the principal investigator if accessed by a co-author who was a junior investigator or laboratory technician. Similarly… - 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… - Case
Homeoprophylactic treatment of a zoonotic disease
We attempted to contact the Ministry of Health without success. We have contacted the director of PAHO (the Pan American Health Organization) and are awaiting a response.… - Case
Plagiarism, double submission and reviewer ethicality
This is a complicated case which involves possible plagiarism, double submission and reviewer misconduct. The timeline is as follows: In year n, a paper P1 authored by A1 and A2 was published in the English language journal X. The paper describes a theoretical analysis of a particular phenomenon. In year n+6, paper P2 was published in a non-English language outlet by auth…