- Case
Suspected data fabrication
…the study meant that the pool of eligible subjects was small, and the protocol was rigorous, not to say unethical, so it would have been difficult to have obtained informed consent. What, if anything, does COPE suggest be done to investigate the suspected fraud?… - Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2022: Book wars
…Political Scandal. Moderator Dan Kulp, COPE Chair, and Director of editorial development for journals, American Chemical Society (ACS). He received his PhD… - Case
Conflict of interest
…Ethics (COPE). The institution audited 100 questionnaires selected by computerised randomisation. Outcome details on the original handwritten records corresponded with the project’s computerised database. The overall distribution of rapes and murders were re-analysed according to alleged perpetrators, and the results agreed with the published findings. Outcomes were then compared by political… - Case
Duplicate publication
The committee thought that this was almost tantamount to blacklisting. COPE has never suggested blacklisting as a method. The journal should decide if there should be a notice of duplicate publication and then notify the authors. The committee thought that it is not right to ban authors, blacklists raise a myriad of legal difficulties and also have a lack of due process. A better route… - Case
Breach of peer review confidentiality
The Forum agreed that breach of confidentiality is a serious matter and should be investigated. As the editor confirmed that the instructions to reviewers in his journal stress the confidentiality of reports, it does appear very likely that reviewer A did breach confidentiality. The editor should contact reviewer A and ask for an explanation. It may be that this was an honest mistake and… - Case
Allegation of fraudulent publication
We have followed COPE’s advice and have sent a letter to the author at the centre of this case expressing our concerns that the papers in question are very similar and asking for an explanation. We have also written to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal in which the second paper was published to alert him to the situation. We enclosed a copy of our letter to the author and also copies of… - Case
New surgical technique without evidence of either ethics committee approval or patient consent
The case was sent to the journal’s ethics committee as well as COPE, who disputed the authors’ suggestion that their country “did not have any ethical committee whose permission is needed to carry out any new procedure.” The authors’ country had recently enacted research guidelines. The key issue would be whether surgical innovations would fall within the guidelines’ remit. The editor wrote to… - Case
The single authored, unbelievable, randomised controlled trial
…their concerns. It was not up to COPE to question the institution’s process of investigation. As the paper had been rejected the raw data could not be requested. But it was an editor’s responsibility to protect the integrity of scientific publication. The editor contacted the institution again requesting further information on this judgment. The journal is seriously considering publishing something on… - Case
Developing novel approaches to improve the assessment of absolute risk among patients with cardiovascular disease
…indication that a shortened version had already been accepted for publication in Journal B. The editors conferred and also took advice from COPE. A short letter inviting comments from the senior author of the papers was sent by the editor of Journal A and elicited a telephone response from the senior author. He apologised, but presumably because he was unaware that the editor had seen all the manuscripts,… - Case
Publication of misleading information and publication
This is not within COPE’s remit as the case was not submitted by an editor. Suggest that the complainant submit a letter to the editor of the journal concerned. A systematic review of published studies would expose the flaws.… - Case
Competing interest issue
…would like to ask COPE: (1) Would you have taken a different course of action? (2) Would you feel differently if the competing interest was that he/she was the peer reviewer? (3) This is a form of consensus paper; therefore, it would be hard to find any expert/evaluator who was not involved in some way (it is very difficult to find anyone who hasn't been involved or consulted… - Case
Attempts to draw attention to potential duplicate publication
…owners’ attention to good practice as set out in the COPE guidelines and the Code of Conduct for Editors. - The editor should also consider contacting the authors’ institutions directly.… - Case
Duplicate submission to two journals and previous duplicate publication uncovered
_ The dean or head of the institution should be informed. _ Although the author had offended on a previous occasion, he/she was continuing to attempt to secure dual publication. _ The editor had a duty to take the matter further, particularly as he was a member of COPE. _ The editor must tell the other editor what he intends to do. _ He should recommend that the institution not only look at… - Case
Refusal to give details of a competing interest
…the next edition of the journal along with a more detailed study, using evidence gathered during the case and exposing the tobacco company’s action in establishing a secret facility to look at the health effects of passive smoking in a European country. The author in question was the link between this facility and the tobacco company, his role being to conceal the link. COPE’s support had been an… - Case
Authorship dispute
As a result of the COPE discussions the editors reversed their decision. Manuscripts will be accepted for evaluation from either author. The journal is also re-evaluating its policy guidelines. The editors decided that in this particular instance it would be inappropriate to contact the host institution.… - Case
Duplicate submission of a paper
…would not happen. Does COPE have any views on how this sort of situation should be prevented and what action should be taken when it does arise? The journal’s advice to authors is clear about the importance of advising if there are previous related papers that have been published or submitted.… - Case
Retrospective trial registration
The Forum questioned whether this was a case of salami slicing and asked why these data had not been published in the original paper. All agreed that there was no point in registering the trial at this point. The editor should not insist on trial registration as it may cause more confusion as it might then appear to future enquirers that there were two trials when in fact all the data were… - Case
Duplicate publication
…their institutions, raising the issue of the wider crime of fraud. _ Overseas regulatory bodies often don’t reply, perhaps because they are uninterested or feel it is not COPE’s business to investigate misconduct. _ Check the submission letter to see if all of the authors have signed it. _ The editor should present a fuller version of the case presented at COPE to the corresponding author and all… - CaseCase Closed
Mislabelling/duplicate images
…decision and will proceed according to our plan outlined above. I would very much appreciate COPE’s advice on how we have handled the situation so far, and whether our plan of action could be/have been improved.… - Case
Dual submission, salami slicing, redundant publication, or all three?
…the companion paper. Many journals have this sort of provision in their instructions to authors. These make authors think twice about attempting inappropriate dual submission. What would happen if an editor requests the author to provide the companion paper and the author refuses? The COPE guidelines on redundant publication state that at submission, authors should disclose details…