- CaseOn-going
Plagiarized figure
We received a review paper and it was accepted and published on our website. We then noticed that one of the figures had been copied from a paper published in another journal. Before publication, we asked the authors if the figures were original or if they needed references, and the authors responded that they were original. After confirmation of the similarity of one figure to… - Case
“Research” without ethics committee approval
…difficult for them to know who to approach for ethics approval. The main problem for small private researchers is the incoherence of the structures. _ This problem becomes even more pronounced when authors are from other countries where the research ethics committee system is less comprehensive. Occasionally editors receive papers from countries with no research ethics review system. _ Editors should only… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 11 November 2019: Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making
…for AI intervention include: journal selection, topic identification, reviewer suggestion, scope assessment, text duplication checking, and statistical analyses; however, this is not a comprehensive list of AI options, and the opportunities for AI use are expanding at a rapid rate. With the advancement of AI, questions surrounding the relevant ethics arise as to if, when, and how AI… - Case
Ethical standards in animal research
The details of the experiment were “particularly gruesome” which meant that the validity of the data as a model for human disease was questionable. The editor intends publishing an editorial comment relating to submissions in general, possibly in the form of a review article on some aspect of good animal practice, with an accompanying editorial.… - Case
The cheating medical students
_ Inform the medical school. _ The school needs to review its procedures. _ The two students should be told before this action is taken, and every measure should be taken to preserve their anonymity.… - CaseOn-going
Ethics approval and consent
…that was provided. This is particularly relevant if vulnerable populations were involved. The statement should state how the authors ensured that the participants gave their consent voluntarily. The editor could use the vulnerable populations policy to justify questioning the research. The editor could also request that the documentation and discussions of the institutional review board be made… - Case
Self plagiarism
On initial assessment of a submitted review paper with a single author, the editor checked some of the references to the author’s own work that were cited in the paper. The author mentioned in the covering letter that he had written extensively on some of the specific themes of the paper, as the references made clear, but he claimed that the paper was an original synthesis of the material. - Case
CV study: was ethics approval and consent required?
…of the questionnaires were returned. The editors were concerned that the authors had used the applicants’ CVs without their permission, and that the applicants were unaware that they would be used for reasons other than a job application. The CVs were not anonymised before the authors analysed them. And the study did not seem to have been submitted for ethical review. The thinking was that the… - CaseCase Closed
Withdrawal of an article
We received a manuscript for consideration for publication in one of our journals (Journal A). During the peer review process we became aware that the manuscript had already been published in another journal (Journal B). When we asked the authors about this they said that they had asked the other journal to withdraw their manuscript before publication but this had not been done. We rejected… - CaseCase Closed
Request for addition of new authors
…unethical to add a coauthor at the proofreading stage. COPE has a flowchart specifically for requests prior to article publication. All authors must agree to add new authors (which is true at any stage in the peer review process), and this has to be documented and explained. … - CaseOn-going
Licence for a published scale
…considered for publication must be submitted to the developer first to check that all copyright requirements are included. We felt it would be editorially irresponsible to allow these changes to the manuscript after peer review and have had to withdraw the manuscript (the developer also indicated that he "will not allow" the authors to publish the version of the manuscript that was accepted). The authors… - CaseCase Closed
Consequence for dual submission
An author submitted work to our journal (journal A) which, after two rounds of peer review, was accepted and published. One week after it was published, the editors of journal B contacted our journal stating that this work, with the exact same title, authors and content, had been submitted to journal B and, after receiving an acceptance letter, the author withdrew the paper, informing them… - CaseCase Closed
Authorship dispute
…comprising peer review and revisions by the authors. It was accepted for publication in July 2014. During the evaluation process, author A included two new co-authors (authors F and G). The paper was published in November 2014 with author A and co-authors B, F and G. From the time of manuscript submission until publication, the excluded co-authors C, D and E did not contact the journal or send any… - Case
Randomisation and ethics of pilot trials
…contact the other journal and say that he had concerns about the paper during the peer review process but others argued that in the absence of hard evidence there is little that the other editor can do. Most agreed that the editor had exhausted all avenues available to him. Update (August 2009) The editor agreed with COPE’s conclusion that there was nothing more to be done.… - CaseCase Closed
Serial plagiarism by an experienced author
Suspicions were raised on 20 September 2012 by a reviewer who commented that some of the passages in a submission from Dr J were similar to an earlier paper published in our journal by the same author. An iThenticate check indicated a similarity index of 60%: however, the overlap was not from that earlier paper but from another source by a different author which had contributed 41% of the… - Case
Duplicate submission to two journals and previous duplicate publication uncovered
An identical paper was submitted simultaneously to two journals. Both editors had received a signed statement from the authors declaring that their paper had not been submitted elsewhere. Duplicate submission became evident only when the associate editor of one of the journals was sent the paper to review by the editor of the other journal. The author also cited two papers within this… - Case
Inadequately supervised research?
A piece of qualitative research was submitted that looked at the experiences of families facing a particular illness. The first author was both the main carer for the families and the researcher. She conducted and analysed all the interviews. Nobody else seemed to have analysed the verbatim transcripts, although two senior authors did help with analysis of the data. The reviewers and editorial… - Case
Research on volunteers without informed consent or ethics committee approval
An experiment on a volunteer in hospital was written up. The volunteer was an asthmatic who was stable at the time and given a combination of intravenous magnesium sulphate and salbutamol to observe the pharmacological effects. The drugs were given under supervision in intensive care as they carry some risk of cardiovascular side effects. The paper reports: "After discussion with colleagues, a… - Case
The wrong standard deviations, the over stringent selection criteria, and the overt attempt at advertising
…unusual. These excluded half of the eligible population. 3. The intervention was more successful than the control in managing the condition. The language of the paper adopted the style of an advertisement. The company manufacturing the intervention had assisted financially in the study. An independent statistical reviewer did not believe that the over stringent selection criteria could have explained the… - Case
A surgical series that is scientifically meaningless, has no ethics committee approval, and does not mention informed consent
A study from a foreign author was submitted in which he describes a series of patients whom he has operated on to treat their migraine. The operation is something that he has devised himself and consists of suturing a superficial temporal artery. The surgeon has operated on over 1200 patients. There is no clear definition of how the diagnosis was made and no control group. There is no mention o…