- CaseCase Closed
Possible omission of information essential for conclusions in a research paper
…earlier and should have disclosed this information during the review process of their 2013 paper. In our initial response in July 2014 to the letter of concern, we asked the researcher who sent us the letter of concern to send us a detailed rapid response to the 2013 paper, which we could publish. We have also asked advice of our statistical advisor who reviewed the 2013 paper, and he… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 4 September 2013: Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct
…time zones. The type of information shared might include general enquiries about whether a particular author has submitted certain types of cases to other journals within a particular field, or specifics about manuscripts including data or even reviews. Such sharing might allow comparisons of submitted data in different versions of the same manuscript for example, or of potentially plagiarised… - CaseOn-going
Editor as author of a paper
A subject editor, who oversaw a manuscript, was invited by the authors to become a co-author after the first review round. After inviting the subject editor to become an author (and adding his name to the author list), the revised version of the paper was submitted to the journal. The authors expected that a different subject editor would handle the paper in the next review round. - CaseOn-going
Concerns about the reliability of findings following re-analysis of a dataset from a published article
The Forum suggested that a better course of action would have been if the editor had asked the authors for their comments on the re-analysis, and then submitted the results of the re-analysis and the authors comments to an independent expect to review. Although the reader is happy to have the re-analysis attached to a commentary, this will not be formally indexed or linked to the… - Case
Suspected systematic data fabrication
…that if no satisfactory response is received then the authors’ institutions will be contacted and informed of the situation. Other advice offered was to have an independent statistical adviser review the paper, independently of the third party. A number of the journals involved are published by one publisher who was represented at the meeting. The publisher agreed to encourage its… - CaseCase Closed
Omitted author
A case series of 89 patients with a relatively rare condition was accepted for publication by the journal following due process through the peer-review system. The paper was published online within days of being accepted. A few days later the editor of the journal received an email from a professor (Professor X) from the same country from which the paper was submitted to say that one of the… - Case
Author dispute over data presented in paper
A manuscript was submitted to our Journal in 2008. The six authors signed the author form for the Journal which accompanies all submitted manuscripts. The author form gives information on the role each author played in the study and states that each author has read and approved the paper for submission to the Journal. Following peer-review the paper was accepted for publication. It was… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2020: Understanding text recycling
…practical dimensions— our work currently is focused on helping sort out things in STEM fields and to develop useful guidelines and policy documents there. 5. For systematic reviews and meta-analyses it is inevitable that in order to describe the studies in the reviews, we have to describe verbatim the approach used in the analysis. This is important where the research design, methods of… - Translated resources
Webinar 2020: research and publishing ethics challenges and best practices
…of Excellence in Academic Publishing webinars, as part of their joint training program for Chinese researchers, reviewers and journal editors. Dr Trevor Lane, COPE Council member introduced the trend, challenges and best practices in research and publishing ethics. Trevor also led a live discussion with the audience on selected COPE cases. What are the issues? Dr Lane… - Case
Studies where there is no research ethics committee, or where committees disagree as to the need for approval
The editor of this journal, in common with other journals, requires that, where appropriate, studies published should have been approved by the relevant ethics committee. In some cases researchers have reported to the editor that they have found no committee willing to accept competence, or that different committees are taking different lines on which studies require approval. As an exam… - Case
Suspected plagiarism
This is regarding a case of suspected plagiarism in our journal. I as editor have received a manuscript which was published by me in our January 2006 issue and on subsequent follow up after availability of plagiarism detection software the manuscript - a review article - seems to have a lot of similarities to another article written in a website and though the language is not the same -the… - Case
Dual publication and attempted retraction by the author
…own submission. She then explained that some personal and professional issues had distracted her for some time, after which her PhD tutor told her that his manuscript had indeed been accepted and published elsewhere. The lengthy review process had caused serious delays since it was first submitted, he said. The second paper was published two months after the first. The letter writer and Professor… - Case
The unacceptable use of a placebo
This was a small randomised controlled trial of a medication for an active inflammatory condition. The trial was unnecessary, as several large trials and a recent non-systematic review had shown that the medication was beneficial for flare-ups of the condition. In this case, all patients were taken off non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and then they were randomly allocated to… - Case
Redundant publication and change of authors
The case was investigated by the chief executive of whom? The overlap was evident on re-review, but the chief executive felt that there had been no deliberate intention to deceive.… - Case
The perfect study but no investigational drug
A paper was submitted that described the use of a non-licensed investigational drug. One of the paper’s reviewers drew attention to the fact that none of the investigators in the study had been supplied with the drug since 1992/3. The drug is produced exclusively by one manufacturer who has operated an extremely restrictive policy regarding availability of the compound. I contacted the… - CaseOn-going
Same cohort - same blood samples - multiple tests
…identified between the papers. The Editor of one journal is a reviewer for the other and they picked up the similarities based on the study sites, inclusion criteria, etc that indicate this is the same patient cohort, and the same sample has been tested for two organisms. We are concerned that this could be a case of salami slicing. Question: What is the recommendation… - CaseOn-going
Inappropriate authorship on students paper
A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study which was a final year student's project was submitted as an original article to our journal on 30 April 2011. On initial review it was obvious that it was conducted by students and written by them, but the list of authors had the supervisor as the first author, followed by 13 students. The supervisor, who was also the corresponding author,… - CaseCase Closed
What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction versus correction?
…demanded by the PhD student and his/her supervisor, would more serve to punish the authors (which the editorial team understood is not the purpose of a retraction) than to correct and benefit the literature. It is worth noting that although three referees approved the article (in open peer review), the student and supervisor and some others who commented publicly have also questioned the… - CaseCase Closed
Multiple redundant submissions from the same author
An author submitted a redundant publication to one of our journals. After reviewing the report from the anti-plagiarism software, we followed the COPE flowchart up to and including contacting the author's institution. We have not received a response from the author or the author's institution. Shortly afterwards, the same author submitted a (different) redundant publication to one of our other… - Case
Author trap/fabrication detection
This is how I dealt with an author who submitted a fabricated manuscript to my journal. A junior doctor submitted a paper about the use of a drug in a particular condition. Three expert reviewers were sure that the author did not undertake the claimed study, emphasising that the drug was not available in our country (Middle Eastern country) and it had not been registered for clinical…