- CaseCase Closed
Institutional review board approval needed?
…received a note from the author with the information that in the country of origin, no ethical approval was required on a master’s thesis. The study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles of the Helsinki declaration. The author noted that the results of the master’s thesis might be of importance and could make a contribution to the literature. It was supported by the university that… - Case
Retrospective correction: how far back do we go?
…transfer to the surgical unit. They pointed out that the baby had never needed a tracheostomy, and that in fact the child had had dysmorphic features with an abnormal upper airway, which may have accounted for the problems that occurred subsequently. This letter was shown to the authors of the case report, who replied; both letters were published in the journal. The reply was an extraordinary brush-off,… - CaseCase Closed
What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction versus correction?
A short research article described a new method and tested the method, showing proof-of-concept that the method worked; the idea for the method is presented as the authors’ own. On publication, the paper receives an overwhelmingly positive response from the community. Shortly after publication, the editorial team is contacted by a PhD student and their supervisor who had published the… - Forum discussion topics
Editing of reviewer comments
March 2020 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… - Forum discussion topics
Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills”
…images (eg, Western blots and flow cytometry data). Paper mills are difficult to spot until there is a bulk of published papers that can be compared, often across publishers. Asking for raw data from the authors is a logical first step, but collecting and checking the data is not straightforward. This is especially the case if data files require specialist software… - Forum discussion topics
What does peer review mean in the arts, humanities and social sciences?
…on the arts, humanities and social science (AHSS) disciplines, respondents focused on a number of language, quality, diversity and inclusivity issues. In terms of the most frequently identified issues, these were: Addressing language and writing quality barriers while remaining inclusive Issues around the way in which authors receive and respond to criticism Detecting… - CaseCase Closed
Journal refuses to correct the record
An author contacted our journal in August 2011 informing us that a paper he had published in our journal in 2005 had been published, word for word, in another journal (journal X), under a different title and author group, in 2007. We followed the appropriate COPE flowchart and contacted the editor of journal X. The editor of journal X told us in September 2011 that he would publish… - Discussion documents
Predatory publishing
The COPE predatory publishing discussion document introduces issues, and analyses potential solutions, around predatory publications. COPE welcomes comments which add to this ongoing debate. Common features of the phenomenon include deception and lack of quality controls, and there are a range of warning signs to look for when assessing a journal. Problems for authors, readers, and… - Case
Redundant publication by an editorial board member
A specialist journal received a paper for review. An editorial board member was one of the authors. The paper was sent out for review and one reviewer replied quite favourably. A few days later the reviewer sent the editor a copy of a paper seen in another journal that was very similar to the one under consideration, and by the same authors. It was the same population and the same study, just… - Guidelines
A short guide to ethical editing for new editors
This short guide aims to summarise the key principles, tasks and relationships of the journal editor role. Becoming an editor of a journal is an exciting but daunting task, especially if you are working alone without day to day contact with editorial colleagues. You may have encountered several different processes, systems and ways of working in your experiences with journals, as author… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 30 April 2018: Preprints: continuing the conversation
Preprint platforms have been common in physics and mathematics but the preprint landscape is changing rapidly with new platforms emerging across various disciplines. This raises opportunities for discussion across communities and for all those involved: preprint platforms, journals, authors, funders and institutions. COPE has facilitated this discussion previously via an earlier forum… - Forum discussion topics
Ethical considerations around book publishing
…differently and many are treated the same within book publishing. Books can be original monographs, anthologies, text books or conference proceedings. Original monographs include original research, whether theoretical or empirical. These can be sole authored or co-authored and will usually be published after full peer review. Anthologies come in various forms. They can be: a collection… - Case
Who ensures the integrity of the editor?
An editor came across a letter from the editor-in-chief of his journal to a reviewer that asserted he had recommended the acceptance of a manuscript. He had in fact recommended the opposite, both verbally and in writing. The paper in question was a guideline on the therapeutic choices for a relatively common medical condition. The authors had claimed their conclusions and therapeutic… - Case
Obtaining consent for a study of people with severe learning disabilities
A paper was submitted which reported a study of observing people with severe learning disabilities and their interactions with staff on a locked hospital ward. The journal was keen to consider the paper further, but had concerns about ethical approval. The authors stated in their cover letter that ‘Ethical approval was sought from the Research Ethics Committee, but the Committee deemed that… - Case
An attempt to bribe an editor
Somebody—possibly a representative of a drug company or a PR acting for the company—rang an editor on behalf of study authors to say that she would guarantee to buy 1000 reprints if the journal would continue to consider for publication a study that conflicted with a policy that the journal had just introduced. “And”, she said, “I will buy you a dinner at any restaurant you choose.” The paper… - Case
Duplicate publication
The editor of Journal A drew the attention of the editor of Journal B to two articles published in their journals which were remarkably similar. The editor of Journal A believed that certain passages of text suggested duplicate publication of results. The dates of publication indicated that these data were accepted first by Journal A. Should it turn out to be duplicate publication, the authors… - Case
Possibly unethical plastic surgery
- The GMC should not be informed. - The author did send in several papers from the US where this procedure is being carried out, but there had been no randomised trials. - Patients might not have been given the whole story—only told, for example, that it was successful in California. - The editor would like to publish the whole case and ask for readers’ responses. - The editor should write to… - Case
Confidentiality and conflict of interest
There is a breach of confidentiality here. The editor should go back to the first author seeking clarification of the supposed premature publication/breach of confidentiality, stating that a reviewer had brought this to his attention. If the reply is unsatisfactory, the editor should refer to the head of the institution. The reviewer should not lead this; the editor should.… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2022: Managing paper mills
…href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/renee-hoch-a53a4429/">Renee Hoch, Managing Editor leading the PLOS Publication Ethics team, spoke about managing of paper mills from the perspective of PLOS with a review of the tactics used by paper mills around content, authorship and peer review and how PLOS identify and investigate manipulation of the publication process. A recent case, investigated by PLOS, was sparked by a red flag to do with author… - Case
Plagiarism, double submission and reviewer ethicality
This is a complicated case which involves possible plagiarism, double submission and reviewer misconduct. The timeline is as follows: In year n, a paper P1 authored by A1 and A2 was published in the English language journal X. The paper describes a theoretical analysis of a particular phenomenon. In year n+6, paper P2 was published in a non-English language outlet by…