- 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… - CaseOn-going
Appropriate scope of review for retractions
An institutional review recommended retraction of certain works by a highly prolific and influential author who has since died. The institutional review focused on a relatively small portion of this author’s work. The institution recommended retraction based on deeming the articles unsafe and identifying several concerns, including that the articles' conclusions were implausible. As a pu… - CaseCase Closed
Authorship dispute during the review process
During the review process for a manuscript submitted to our journal, one of the reviewers alerted us that the manuscript appeared to be the work of a collaborator (Dr X) who was not listed as an author on the paper. It became clear that the manuscript’s corresponding author (Dr Y, affiliation A) was a postdoctoral researcher supervised by Dr X (previously at affiliation A, recently moved to aff… - CaseOn-going
Reproducibility of methodology
A whistle blower contacted journal A regarding two published articles. The articles focus on the effect of energy healing on an in-vitro model of disease. The whistle blower raised concerns about the appropriateness and reproducibility of the energy healing methodology used. The authors were contacted to provide an explanation of the methodology as there was a lack of clarity in… - CaseCase Closed
Removal of an author
A paper was submitted to a journal with authors A, B, C, D and E. The paper was peer reviewed. Before acceptance, the corresponding author asked for a new author, author F, to be added, and an existing author, author C, to be removed. The editorial office asked all of the authors (authors A, B, C, D, E and F) to complete a change of authorship request form and for the corresponding autho… - Discussion documents
COPE Forum 11 November 2019: Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has advanced steadily over the past several years, and has started to introduce data-driven solutions to many processes throughout the publication process. AI tools can be developed to provide guidance to humans based on relevant data, or AI may lend toward automation of some processes without human intervention. Some processes already being considered fo… - Discussion documents
Predatory publishing
Much has been written about ‘predatory publishing’ over the past decade. In this discussion document, COPE will describe the basic phenomenon, identify the key issues, describe the impact on the various stakeholders involved, analyse proposed interventions and solutions, and present COPE’s perspective on addressing the problem going forward. This discussion will synonymously refer to predatory… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Exploring Publication Ethics Issues in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences
We set out to ask: •Are AHSS editors aware of COPE and how can we best communicate our services to them? •What issues are they dealing with that are problematic and what do they need in terms of support? •What is COPE not currently providing? Respondents were asked to report issues that were most widespread and frequent: 1) Addressing langu… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Analysis of retractions, initiators and reasons for retractions
Session on retractions at the European Seminar 2019, chaired by Heather Tierney, COPE Council, presents the results of a study of all retracted papers published in journals processed for the Web of Science (WoS). Thed describes the reasons for retractions, motivation for retraction and who retracts. During the session we also heard from Howard Browman and Catriona Fennell. Links to their presen… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: COPE retraction guidelines
Session on retractions at the European Seminar 2019, chaired by Heather Tierney, COPE Council, with a review of the updated Retraction Guidelines from COPE. During the session we also heard from Thed Van Leeuwen and Catriona Fennell. Links to their presentations are below: Thed Van Leeuwen, Senior Researcher, Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden on the - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Retractions, a publisher's perspective
Session on retractions at the European Seminar 2019, chaired by Heather Tierney, COPE Council, with a publisher's perspectives from Catriona Fennell, Director of Publishing Services, Elsevier. During the session we also heard from Howard Browman and Thed Van Leeuwen. Links to their presentations are below: Howard Browman, COPE Council, with the - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2019: In the aftermath of authorship violations in philosophy
Michael Dougherty, Professor of Philosophy, Ohio Dominican University speaks about authorship violations in philosophy including: using pseudonyms in philosophy and how to avoid post-publication pseudonym surprises. why we should be concerned about plagiarism, types of plagiarism in philosophy and what are the options for whistleblowers? What editors and publishers… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Plenary on predatory publishing
Perspectives on predatory publishing and thoughts about solutions with Deborah Poff, COPE Chair.… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2019: Text Recycling Research Project
Text recycling research project session chaired by Mirjam Curno, COPE Council and presented by: Michael Pemberton, Georgia Southern University. Professor of Writing Linguistics, Director of the University Writing Center, and Editor of Across the Disciplines. "What do gatekeepers across academic fields believe about appropriate text recycling practice?" Cary Moskovit… - Seminars and webinars
WCRI 2019: Preprints and their place in the publication ethics landscape
While preprints have existed in some disciplines for decades, preprints and preprint platforms are becoming more and more common across the entire landscape of publishing. The total output from preprints remains low in comparison to published journal articles, however, preprints are growing rapidly across many disciplines. Preprints also offer some interesting questions and potential concerns o… - Case
Publishing complications and patient safety
Journal A is dedicated to communication about practical treatments related directly to patient and personal experiences. These ongoing discussions have been part of this specific medical profession for the past 50 years and journal A is a platform for these discussions. Regarding new treatments and new developments, permission from the local medical ethical commission is mandatory as wel… - CaseOn-going
Authorship issue related to misleading action of one author
Our journal received a manuscript which was a report of an evaluation and enhancement of an online clinical decision support system (CDS) for a specific population at risk of a disease. The online CDS had been developed by a national agency with a mission to support health promotion and disease prevention activities. Evaluation of the CDS was supported through contracts and sub-contracts. The f… - CaseCase Closed
Withdrawal of paper at proof stage
An original paper was submitted to our journal. After peer review, the authors were requested to revise the paper, and the revision was submitted back to the journal. Our manuscript editor accepted the paper. The paper was scheduled for publication 3 months later after copyediting was completed. We informed the corresponding author about acceptance of the paper and sent them the typeset…