- 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… - CaseCase Closed
Authors requesting withdrawal of articles from similarity check database in order to re-publish
An author's institution requires that authors publish a set amount of times per year in journals that are indexed by Scopus in order to retain their tenure. The author submits to an open access journal and their paper is published after processing charges are paid. After publication the journal is dropped from the Scopus index. The author asks for the paper to be withdrawn by the journal so tha… - CaseCase Closed
How to respond to a reader's repeated concerns
A meta-analysis was published in a journal ahead of print, and then subsequently in print. Several months later, the journal was contacted by a faculty member at a university not connected with the study. The reader outlined three general concerns with the meta-analysis. The concerns were discussed by the editorial team, including the statistical editor, and it was decided that the overall resu… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 4 September 2020: paper mills
Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills” Increasingly, across the research publishing landscape, publishers are seeing large scale manipulation of the publication process. The production of fraudulent papers at scale via alleged ‘paper mills’ is one such manipulation. Paper mills are profit oriented, unofficial and po… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2020: Understanding text recycling
In 2020 we hosted a webinar with invited speakers from the Text Recycling Research Project (TRRP) to hear about their latest findings, and the ethical and practical issues involved in establishing good practice and effective policy. Watch now - Translated resources
Webinar 2020: research and publishing ethics challenges and best practices
…China Association for Science and Technology, Taylor & Francis Group and Society of China University Journals co-organised webinar The webinar 'Research and publishing ethics: challenges and best practices' was endorsed and sponsored by China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), Taylor & Francis Group and Society of China University Journals who co-organised a series… - Research
Editing of reviewer comments: a COPE survey 2020
…Introduction Peer reviewers are asked to contribute intellectual work to assess and improve scholarly publications. As with all work, the quality and characteristics of peer reviews vary. Editors responsibilities include support not only to the peer reviewers who typically volunteer the time and knowledge but also to the authors, who reasonably should expect non-conflicted, thoughtful,… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 6 March 2020: Editing of reviewer comments
…Editing of reviewer comments The topic for discussion at our March 2020 COPE Forum asked questions around the editing of reviewer comments. Peer reviewers are asked to contribute intellectual work to assess and improve scholarly publications. As with all work, the quality and characteristics of peer reviews vary. Editors responsibilities include support not only to the peer revi… - CaseCase Closed
Author displays bullying behaviour towards handling editor
A handling editor rejected a paper without review, after consulting with a senior editor. The corresponding author sent an appeal about 2 weeks later where he requested that the paper be given a second chance and be sent for peer review. He added that, in case of a new decision to reject without review, the editor should provide a detailed response to a number of questions and comments raised i… - CaseCase Closed
Author admits failure to credit other authors
An author submitted a manuscript and stated that he was the sole author. The manuscript received a favourable peer review and eventually was accepted. Some time after the article was published, a co-author told the author to contact the journal to correct the author list. The author of record (AOR) did this and supplied co-author names to the journal. The editor worked with the author… - CaseOn-going
Ethics approval for survey design
A manuscript was submitted to disseminate a cross correlational survey research study. The manuscript states that the data were collected through surveys for the two calendar months prior to initial manuscript submission, which occurred in the middle of the third month. The initial submission indicated the research followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, but no other human subje… - CaseCase Closed
Is approval needed for a social media survey?
An author has contacted the journal enquiring about the need for institutional review board approval for a survey. The survey is not derived from a specific institution but rather out of the personal interest of the author(s) who are targeting a point of wide scientific interest. The authors have a broad reach in social media. The topic is of significant interest to the field, and there… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 2 June 2020: What does peer review mean in the arts, humanities and social sciences?
The topic for discussion at our June 2020 COPE Forum asked the question: are there differences in gender and diversity issues in arts, humanities, and social sciences in peer review from other disciplines? In the recent study by COPE in collaboration with Taylor & Francis on the arts, humanities and social science (AHSS) disciplines, respondents focused on a number of language, qual… - CaseCase Closed
Sharing by a reviewer on social media
A journal operated double blind peer-review, so the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa. However, the anonymity of the authors is not guaranteed, as the reviewers may discover the identity of the authors (because of the area of research, references, writing style, etc). But rarely can the authors identify the reviewers. The journal received a request from a… - CaseOn-going
Allegations related to multiple papers and journals
A publisher is responding to allegations about a particular group of authors. The complainants have accused this group of authors of wide scale research fabrication and misconduct, relating to a large number of their papers across many different journals (published by a variety of publishers). The publisher and the journals that are investigating and responding to these claims have refer… - CaseOn-going
Institution wants to retract despite ongoing legal proceedings
The case has been with two publishers for more than a year. Journal A at publisher A published article A by author A, affiliated to institution A and institution B (in another country), and author B affiliated to institution B. Journal B at publisher B then published article B, by the same authors and affiliations. The two articles are on closely related research. Shortly after publicati… - CaseCase Closed
Institution refuses to investigate scientific issues
A publisher was alerted to possible issues with band duplication in an article (more than 10 years old) by a reader. The corresponding author was contacted to resolve the issue. The author was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the bands, and because of the age of the article, the original data were no longer available. The institution was asked to investigate; a summary of the ca… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2019: Allegations of misconduct
In 2019 we hosted a webinar discussing allegations of misconduct, with a research institution perspective on research misconduct, and a discussion on the role of editors, journals and publishers in dealing with allegations of misconduct. Watch now - Seminars and webinars
WCRI 2019: Perspectives on predatory publishing
COPE was invited to speak on predatory publishing at this WCRI plenary. Deborah Poff kicked off with a preview of COPE’s discussion document on predatory publishing, currently in preparation. She gave a philosophical whistle-stop tour of the complexities in defining and naming the problem. There is disa… - Seminars and webinars
WCRI 2019: Responsible authorship
COPE was invited to speak on responsible authorship in this panel discussion. Charon Pierson gave a view from COPE with an analysis of 134 authorship cases that have been submitted to COPE, by members, for discussion and advice. The qualitative analysis of cases related to authorship and contributorship reflects several broad categories of intentional and unintentional behaviours by auth…