- Case
Author dispute concerning ownership of data
A paper submitted to Journal X was reviewed and rejected with the recommendation that it be submitted to a more clinical journal. The paper was duly submitted to Journal Y. The authorship was A, B, C, D and E, with E being the corresponding author linking together two research groups in different cities, but in the same country. Journal Y sent the paper to reviewers and, after discussion,… - CaseOn-going
Editor as author of a paper
The Forum agreed this was a failure of journal processes and the editor in chief must take responsibility for this. The change was not detected but there should be processes in place when any change in the authorship of a paper is noted. Authors should be required to clearly state when any changes in authorship are made after the initial submission, and the journal needs to ensure it tightens… - Seminars and webinars
COPE webinar: Enhancing partnerships of institutions and journals
…revision. Marie then talked about four major points that are currently open for discussion before finalising the revised guidelines (please share your comments): Who at institutions handles or mediates authorship disputes? What is the best way to handle these issues? Use of words by institutions and referred to by journals can be split into two areas: 'Integrity'… - Translated resources
Webinar 2020: research and publishing ethics challenges and best practices
…highlights the main research and publishing issues such as: authorship issues; plagiarism; falsification and fabrication of data, processes or results. Best practices Resources for best practice in research and publication ethics: COPE's principles of transparency and core practices. The Singapore statement on research practices 2010 San Francisco Declaration… - CaseCase Closed
Transparency of peer review to co-authors
…corresponding author. This may prevent some cases of guest authorship arising. However, the Forum agreed that publishers may edit reviewers’ comments before sending them to authors if they contain rude or libellous remarks. The publisher should keep the original reviewer comments on file for internal use but it is acceptable to send a ‘cleaned up’ version to the authors.… - Case
Triplicate publication with possibly different data in each
…been done correctly. However, they did not think that any sanctions were necessary, but they revised their guidelines on authorship.… - Forum discussion topics
Ethical aspects of conference proceedings
…Can a definition be agreed on that accurately and comprehensively encompasses them? Are proceedings subject to publication ethics to the same extent/equivalently as journals and books? Are most of the publication ethics issues the same in conference proceedings as in book or journal publishing (eg, plagiarism, authorship, ethics approval, consent, peer review standards, expressions… - Guidelines
Retraction guidelines
…to subscribers) State who is retracting the article State the reason(s) for retraction Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language Retractions are not usually appropriate if: The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction… - Forum discussion topics
Ethical considerations around book publishing
…increasingly self-publication. Questions for discussion Are most of the publication ethics issues the same in book publishing as in journal publishing (eg, plagiarism, authorship, ethics approval, consent, peer review)? Are there particular problems with books (eg, how to retract a full book? How to retract part of a book–a single chapter within an anthology/edited… - CaseCase Closed
Meta-analysis: submission of unreliable findings
A meta-analysis was conducted of about 1000 patients included in a number of small trials of a drug for emergency management administered by route X compared with route Y. The report concluded that administration by route X improves short term survival. Chronology The paper was submitted to our journal in September 2011 and after peer review was retur… - Case
Who ensures the integrity of the editor?
…that it was at odds with the definition of authorship by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).The editor-in-chief ignored these concerns. Shortly thereafter, the association’s CEO announced that no letters should be published in the association’s journal that criticised association policy. The editor-in-chief initially stated to the journal staff that he disagreed with this… - Case
Request for a retraction of a retraction
…different standards of collecting and assessing evidence, and reaching a judgment, and because the author of the retracted paper has admitted three types of misconduct, our journal is not minded to retract the retraction. A remaining option is to ask the retracted author why he made those admissions. A sticky point for our journal is that, despite published letters that disown authorship… - Case
Duplicate publication
In 2003 a paper was published in a specialist surgical journal following proper peer review. The paper summarised the experience of a group of clinicians concerned in treating malignancy in the Head and Neck using a novel method of therapy - and was a case series of 25 patients. The paper was not considered to be one of high priority but was published because of the paucity of information con… - Guidelines
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
…The target readership of the journal. The types of manuscripts the journal will consider for publication (for example, that multiple or redundant publication is not allowed). Authorship criteria. ISSNs (separate for print and electronic versions). 3. Publishing schedule A journal’s publishing frequency should be clearly described, and the journal… - Case
Plagiarism in a systematic review
…specific aspect of the previously published review, but the format is identical and large portions of the text are either directly copied or only slightly modified from that review. The authors refer to the previous review in their introduction but do not attribute any of the copied material to it. There is no overlap in authorship between the two reviews. Even if… - CaseCase Closed
Lack of ethical approval and not reporting experimental evidence
In May 2011 a letter from the Vice-Rector for Personnel of a reputable university was sent to the editor mentioning that two articles published in the journal contained two statements not supported by documented evidence. The two statements related to: (1) approval of the local ethics committee and (2) representation of the experimental evidence. With regard to point (1), the authors sta… - Guidelines
Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases
…journals/publishers about any findings that relate to the reliability or attribution of published work that may arise during a research integrity or misconduct investigation respond to journals if they request information about issues, such as disputed authorship, misleading reporting, competing interests, or other factors, including honest errors, that could affect the reliability of published work… - CaseCase Closed
A systematic review on a country’s health problem written by non-native authors
…authorship/conflict of interest declarations and check for possible bias in the text or analyses. The authors’ reasons for doing the study could also be examined. It might also be worth checking the research track records or stated jobs and institutions of the authors. However, as the paper is not a primary research paper (ie, the authors are not gathering the data in country) there is no issue here. A suggestion… - 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… - Case
Competing interest issue
An online post-publication literature evaluation service, aiming to highlight the best articles in medicine, received an evaluation of an article on which the evaluator was listed as an author on PubMed. The editor queried the evaluation and the evaluator replied explaining s/he had no involvement with the study but had commented on it. When the editor looked at the full text HTML version on th…