- CaseCase Closed
Behaviour of researcher during peer review
An anonymised manuscript was sent to a senior faculty member (researcher A) of a well-known institute for peer review. The faculty member was known to have pedigree in publication on the topic of the manuscript for many years. The manuscript was rejected with comments. Based on editorial opinion and other comments, the manuscript was rejected by the editor-in-chief. Six weeks after rejection, i… - CaseCase Closed
Criteria to determine whether an author’s response to concerns about data validity is satisfactory
Questions were raised regarding the validity of data in two published papers (from the same author). The journal therefore followed the initial steps as listed in the COPE flowchart ‘What to do if you suspect fabricated data’ and contacted the author as appropriate. The author responded promptly and provided all the information requested (ethics approval letters, the original protocols… - CaseCase Closed
Data source for study of questionable integrity and provenance
A journal recently handled a research paper related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper was deemed of interest and sent for external peer review. Because it accrued reasonably positive reviews it was scheduled for discussion at one of the weekly manuscript meetings where research editors and a statistician make final decisions on a number of papers. A few days before the meeting, it came… - CaseOn-going
Ethical approval requirements for case study reports
We have noticed a lot of variety in the way that ethical approval for Case Reports are published in different journals. For example, some state that the study was determined not to require Ethics Committee (EC) or Institutional Review Board (IRB) review especially if it was a retrospective review. Others state that all procedures were carried out in accordance with approved ethical standards, g… - CaseOn-going
An unpublished PhD thesis included in an institutional library is submitted to an academic journal
A manuscript was submitted to Journal A. A routine CrossCheck report revealed a 70% match to the author's PhD thesis. The journal recommended that the author expand the article with new content. The author raised an objection, arguing that the PhD thesis is not published in a journal, but is only included in the institutional library. The journal noted that related issues had been… - CaseCase Closed
Publishing a letter concerning a paper published in another journal many years ago
Recently, Journal X received a letter to the editor based on an article published in another journal about 8 years previously. The editors of Journal X believe this letter is important to their readers. The original article was a seminal paper which changed practice. However, a group of authors challenged some of the data published in this trial in a subsequent review published about 7 ye… - CaseCase Closed
Use of secondary data without proper attribution
Journal A received a paper on a cross sectional study from six coauthors. It was reviewed, accepted and published. Two months later, a clinician contacted the journal and said that the material was taken from their thesis submitted to the same institution six years previously. The corresponding author explained that the data were obtained from a large institution database and pro… - CaseOn-going
Reviewer misconduct and its potential impact on an submitted manuscript
Author X raised concerns that confidential information obtained during the peer review of their submission with Journal Y had been misappropriated by one of the reviewers of their submission (reviewer Z). Author X believed that reviewer Z had used this confidential information in order to silently alter code published by reviewer Z with repository R, which contained errors that were high… - CaseCase Closed
Data availability for vulnerable populations
A paper on a vulnerable population was published in a journal. The journal followed their usual procedures for processing papers on vulnerable populations, by requesting and reviewing further information on the ethics approval and consent procedures of the study (e.g.: recruitment procedures; blank version of the consent document participants read and signed; the study protocol that was approve… - CaseOn-going
Dealing with cases with culturally offensive content
Society journal X and propriety journal Y have received complaints regarding historic papers published in their journals (generating a lot of anger on twitter). The papers outline a practise the society (who had a historic role in its development) no longer endorse. The society has released an apology about their involvement with the practise, but the practice itself is not illegal (in the majo… - CaseOn-going
Unauthorised reviewer challenges
A paper submitted to a journal with a single anonymous peer review policy was assigned to a prospective reviewer, who agreed to undertake the review. The reviewer then sent an email addressed to a number of different research group and institutional mailing lists calling for volunteers to review the paper. The reviewer attached the PDF of the paper, which had been downloaded from the submission… - CaseOn-going
Data integrity issues
Several years ago, a third party contacted the journal with concerns about data irregularities in two randomised controlled trials published about 10 years ago. Both of the papers were published before the journal had strict requirements on data upload to a public repository and availability. The journal sent an initial email to the corresponding author of both papers (the same author fo… - Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2021: Keynote address
The keynote address opened the COPE Seminar 2021. Taking place over a week, the online seminar included a series of nine sessions, with speakers invited to share their experiences. - Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2021: Ethical practice in research data publication - challenges, lessons and opportunities
This seminar session featured four members of the research publishing community discussing their experiences and perspectives on current workflows, standards and ethical issues around dataset curation, management and publication. This session is one of nine webinars forming the COPE Seminar 2021. - Research
Data sharing policies in scholarly publications: interdisciplinary comparisons
Michal Tal-Socher and Adrian Ziderman, are the authors of a paper funded by a COPE research grant. Their paper, Data sharing policies in scholarly publications: interdisciplinary comparisons, has been published in the journal Prometheus, and gives an assessment of current preferences for data sharing… - CaseOn-going
Reproducibility of methodology
A whistle blower contacted journal A regarding two published articles. The articles focus on the effect of energy healing on an in-vitro model of disease. The whistle blower raised concerns about the appropriateness and reproducibility of the energy healing methodology used. The authors were contacted to provide an explanation of the methodology as there was a lack of clarity in… - 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… - 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: Ethical challenges in the arts, humanities, and social sciences
At the North American seminar 2019, Kath Burton (Associate Editorial Director of Arts & Humanities, Routledge, Taylor & Francis) presented the initial research findings and the solution put together on the back of some research conducted by COPE, supported by Routledge. The aim of the research was to better understand the publication ethics needs of arts, humanities and social sc… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2019: Just ideas? The Status and Future of Publication Ethics in Philosophy
At the 2019 COPE North American Seminar, Rebecca Kennison, from K|N Consultants, presented details of a project which "seeks to foster greater awareness among humanities scholars and editors about ethical issues in philosophy publishing…. [It] acknowledges that research and publication ethics in the humanities are in many ways, and for good reasons, complex matters and that, unlike in t…