- CaseOn-going
Authorship issue related to misleading action of one author
…funder. As editor, I replied that at the page proof stage, all edits/changes must be very minor. Substantial changes would require that the manuscript be taken out of the production process and depending on the nature of the changes, the entire submission and review process might have to begin anew. During a telephone call with the first author she stated that she believed the second author had… - Seminars and webinars
COPE webinar 2018: Creating and implementing data research policies
…available data repositories and integrating some repositories into the manuscript submission system, giving reviewers access to data during peer review, ensuring authors include data availability and access statements, and checking data citations and links. The presentation ended with lessons learnt from implementing data policies across a publisher portfolio, including accepting there are differences… - CaseCase Closed
Service evaluation as research in a controversial area of medicine
…problematic. A suggestion was to write an editorial on the concepts more broadly and how the journal’s policy is going to evolve in the future regarding secondary research being conducted as service evaluations/audits/quality improvement reporting and what the ethics requirements will be in the future. What are the expectations of the journal for future submissions of service evaluations? The Forum… - CaseCase Closed
Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication
…the retraction. The new paper would have to be considered as a new submission and should be reviewed by a new set of reviewers. It was noted that a recent issue of The Lancet (31 January 2015) contained a re-published article that had originally been retracted. There was also a linked commentary explaining what had happened. It was suggested that the editor may wish to use this as a model if he… - CaseCase Closed
Compromised peer review (unpublished)
…editorial. We have made a number of technical changes to our systems. On submission, where authors suggest potential peer reviewers we issue this warning: “Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address, will result in the manuscript being rejected.” When a manuscript is shared with an external editor to invite potential reviewers, we… - Forum discussion topics
Peer review models
…However, publishers should be mindful of the fact that not all scholars publish frequently or operate in fields where it is the norm to be registered on these sites. The Forum reported a number of challenges in the current peer review system. These include: Pressure on reviewer pools with growing numbers of article submissions. The growth in fraudulent activities, such as paper… - CaseCase Closed
Misattributed authorship and unauthorized use of data
…submission, author A was affiliated with institution 1 and institution 2. Author D is affiliated with institution 1, while author B, author C and the director are affiliated with institution 2. Author A stated that he included author B and author C as coauthors due to their help with language editing, but he agreed with their request to be removed from the authors list. When asked to comment on his previous… - CaseCase Closed
Lack of ethical approval and not reporting experimental evidence
…standard from the authors, but they do not seem to have broken the rules as at the time of submission (in 1995), formal approval was not considered mandatory. In terms of the data, the Forum agreed that the editor needs to decide whether the basic findings of the study are sound. By leaving out some of the data, were the readers mislead? If the data that have been omitted are incidental and do not… - CaseCase Closed
Lack of trial registration leads to new concerns about study conduct and ethical review/approval
Following publication of an article, the editors noticed that the paper reported results of a clinical trial, but no details of trial registration were included in the article. (The journal does have careful checks on trial registration by staff at submission but this paper was not well written and it took careful reading to work out that it did in fact report on a clinical trial). We… - CaseOn-going
Suspect author
There were various views on how to proceed in this difficult case. Some agreed with sending the analysis to the institution and the suspect author, at the same time, informing them that the intention is to publish the analysis in the journal, and then see what type of response this elicits. Others disagreed and recommended treating the analysis like any other submission (despite the fact that… - Case
Authorship issue
…co-authors on this paper. That is, they believe that they made substantive intellectual contributions to Dr C’s research study. As authors, they would need to approve the submission of the manuscript to the journal. The editors emphasised their journal’s adherence to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors regarding criteria for authorship, which are contained in the… - Forum discussion topics
Editing of reviewer comments
…encouraged the submission of the work and is eager to publish it, but one review is very negative. The review is replete with typographic errors. The review is a single line "This paper should be revised" or "This paper should be rejected". The reviewer accuses the authors of plagiarism or other misconduct within the body of the review. The reviewer's comments are… - CaseOn-going
Concerns over research by an author in numerous, separate publications
…to find some email and postal addresses for the author, by searching online and going back through previous submission records. An article by the author was submitted and published in 2004, and the editor of our journal has mentioned that the paper “could easily be fabricated”. The editorial office sent a message to the author expressing concern about the integrity of a paper that was published in… - Forum discussion topics
Editorial conflicts of interest
…declare potential COIs whenever they submit (co)authored articles to their own journal? Should the declarations be published? Beyond declaration of editorial COIs, how should affected submissions be handled by the journal, and what other bias mitigation steps are needed? Forum discussion summary is not considered formal COPE policy but may be used to develop other types of COPE… - Forum discussion topics
What does peer review mean in the arts, humanities and social sciences?
…tend to publish a small percentage of submissions”. Back to top Questions for the Forum How should editors, publishers and COPE respond to the differences among AHSS journals compared with STEM disciplines? What mechanisms might be introduced to deal with language quality and inclusivity matters? Are standards of expertise different…