- Seminars and webinars
Australian Seminar 2018: Levers for transparency: from funding through research to publication
…At the COPE Australian Seminar 2018, Professor Ralph Horne, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor for research and innovation at RMIT, presented on transparent institutions and the risks, challenges and opportunities that arise for institutions striving for transparency. Deborah Wyatt, the Vice President for society research publishing at Wiley, presented her principles for transparency in an evol… - CaseCase Closed
Editor and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work
A staff member in our editorial office noticed a decision letter where a handling editor instructed an author to cite an article published by the handling editor. The staff member wondered if this had happened before and reviewed recent decision letters by that editor. This revealed a concerning pattern of behaviour—the handling editor’s decision letters (including reviewers’ comments) asked au… - Discussion documents
Who 'owns' peer reviews? September 2017
Introduction Two trends have recently come together within scholarly publication: open peer review and the desire to give recognition to the work peer reviewers do. At the convergence are organisations like Publons and Academic Karma who wish to openly acknowledge the work of peer reviewers by recording, not only the amount, but also, in some circumstances, the content o… - Seminars and webinars
COPE webinar 2017: Current issues in peer review
For Peer Review Week 2017, COPE held a Webinar on the current issues in Peer Review, moderated by Heather Tierney, Managing Editor of Journals and Ethics Policy at the American Chemical Society, and COPE Council Member. The guest speakers were: Tony Ross-Hellauer, Scientific Manager at the OPENAire2020 project, University of Göttinge; Jessica Polka, Director of ASAPbio… - Research
An analysis of peer review cases brought to COPE from 1997-2016
[PDF, 100Kb - click image to download] … - Seminars and webinars
China Seminar 2017: Peer review: strengths, limitations and emerging issues
…Download presentation: "Peer review: strengths, limitations and emerging issues [PDF… - Seminars and webinars
China Seminar 2017: Peer review in the journals published by Chinese Medical Association, experiences and challenges
…Download presentation: Peer review in the journals published by Chinese Medical Association: experiences and challenges [PDF, 451KB]… - CaseCase Closed
Lead author of a research paper disagrees with content of a linked editorial
The author of an accepted research paper (that showed some benefits for a controversial treatment) contacted the journal shortly prior to publication of the paper. It is the policy of our journal not to share commissioned editorials with authors ahead of time. This author had, however, received a copy of the journal press release in preparation for a press briefing. The press release quoted sta… - CaseOn-going
Editor found guilty of research misconduct
A journal appointed a new editor-in-chief to their journal. He had previously been on the editorial board of the journal for 10 years and the editorial registrar for 5 years. During the handover period, it came to the journal’s attention that he was due to appear in front of a tribunal for research fraud. By agreement with the journal, he stepped down until the outcome of the tribunal, and the… - CaseCase Closed
Is it plagiarism to use text verbatim from a manuscript review?
A commentary was reviewed by journal A and rejected. The paper was then submitted and accepted at journal B. Journal B published the commentary. After publication, a reviewer from journal A wrote to journal B with a complaint of plagiarism. Text from his/her review was used in the commentary published in journal B Question(s) for the COPE Forum• How should the editor of jo… - CaseCase Closed
Case histories and post publication debate
A letter to the editor from reader A was received by our journal concerning a published case history from author B. Reader A questioned the choice of treatment and author B's conclusion regarding the reason why the patient died. We believe this case raises at least two interesting questions. Firstly, the patient, or in this case the patient's relatives, could possibly suffer an addition… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2016: Can you spot a fake? The trends of fake peer reviews
…Download presentation: Can you spot a fake? The trend of fake peer reviews [PDF, 848KB] … - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2016: Who's reviewing the reviewers?
…Download presentation: Who's reviewing the reviewers? [PDF, 740Kb]… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2016: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions
…Download presentation: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions [PDF, 731Kb] … - CaseCase Closed
Author requests permission to publish review comments
An author submitted a Forum manuscript critiquing an article published in the journal six years previously. The Forum manuscript was reviewed by three reviewers who all recommended rejection, and was evaluated by an associate editor and a senior editor, who rejected the manuscript on the grounds that the reviewers were unconvinced by the critique and felt that it did not really advance the subj… - CaseCase Closed
Author of rejected paper publicly names and criticises peer reviewer
The first author of a paper rejected by our journal publicly identified one of the four peer reviewers for the paper by name. She did this during a media interview conducted after the paper was published by another journal. The first author implied in that interview and subsequently on Twitter that the paper was rejected because of that person's review and also claimed the reviewer did not reve… - CaseCase Closed
Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
A prospective author contacted the editorial office of a medical journal to request that an intended submission was not reviewed or consulted on by experts involved in a number of published guidelines on the topic of the paper. The author named some of these experts, which included members of the journal’s editorial board (including editor A). The author justified this request by explain… - CaseCase Closed
Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process
Our journal uses an internally transparent process where throughout the editor or peer review process, authors, editors and reviewers are all aware of the identities of who is involved. Reviewers are also told—when initially solicited to do a peer review—that they will be named on the final article manuscript as a reviewer. Prior to publication, the pre-print version of a text is sent to review… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 9 September 2015: Who “owns” peer review?
Two trends have recently come together within scholarly publication; open review, and the desire to give credit to reviewers. At the convergence are organizations like Publons and Academic Karma who wish to openly acknowledge the work of peer-reviewers by recording, not only the amount, but also, in some circumstances, the content of individuals’ peer-review activity. Academics may view service… - Research
What instructions and guidance do journals provide to their reviewers to assess submitted manuscripts? : A survey with particular emphasis on the use of reporting guidelines 2010
The project aims to survey journals’ instructions to reviewers of submitted manuscripts. The study will summarise if and how journals use reporting guidelines in the peer review process, and will explore how effective the editors have found reporting guidelines in improving manuscript quality. The survey will provide an indication of the degree to which reporting guidelines are currently…