You are here

Guidance

Filter by topic

Filter by resource type

Showing 101–120 of 208 results
  • Seminars and webinars

    European Seminar 2017: Arts, humanities, and social sciences. What do we need from COPE?

    At the 2017 COPE European Seminar, Deborah Kahn, Publishing Director of Medicine and Open Access at Taylor & Francis presented her thoughts on what the arts, humanities and social sciences need from an organisation such as COPE. …
  • Seminars and webinars

    European Seminar 2017: Publication and research integrity, a Wellcome perspective

    At the 2017 COPE European Seminar, Robert Kiley from the Wellcome Trust presented Wellcome's perspective on publication and research integrity. The event was filmed, which you can watch below, and the slides are also available.
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Satire in scholarly publishing

    An intentional satire of a randomised controlled trial was published in a journal. In addition to multiple overt clues that the article was fake in the text, the article ended with a clear and direct statement in the acknowledgments that it was satire. Investigators conducting a systematic review on the topic inadvertently included the satire article in their review as a legitimate manus…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Author of rejected paper publicly names and criticises peer reviewer

    The first author of a paper rejected by our journal publicly identified one of the four peer reviewers for the paper by name. She did this during a media interview conducted after the paper was published by another journal. The first author implied in that interview and subsequently on Twitter that the paper was rejected because of that person's review and also claimed the reviewer did not reve…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern

    A group of unspecified members of an organisation have written an expression of concern (letter via email) to the editors wherein they request that an article previously published in the journal be retracted since they believe it is biased and inaccurate about regulation details within the organisation. They are further requesting that their letter be published in the journal. The editor…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Attempt to supress legitimate scientific results

    The journal is operated by institute A, and the editor is an employee of institute A. A manuscript was submitted late in 2014 by authors from institute B, a similar type of organisation in the same country. The manuscript was reviewed by two referees who both recommended publication following minor revision. One of the reviewers noted that the abstract contained a vague statement related to the…
  • Research

    What instructions and guidance do journals provide to their reviewers to assess submitted manuscripts? : A survey with particular emphasis on the use of reporting guidelines 2010

    The project aims to survey journals’ instructions to reviewers of submitted manuscripts. The study will summarise if and how journals use reporting guidelines in the peer review process, and will explore how effective the editors have found reporting guidelines in improving manuscript quality. The survey will provide an indication of the degree to which reporting guidelines are currently…
  • Seminars and webinars

    AsiaPacific Seminar 2011: Publication ethics as a manifestation of professional ethics

    …Download presentation: Publication ethics as a manifestation of professional ethics (PDF, 1155KB)…
  • Forum discussion topics

    COPE Forum 9 December 2014: Publication ethics issues in the social sciences

    Background The history of research ethics in general and publication ethics more specifically was initially and primarily grounded in the biomedical sciences. As concern over issues of animal care, human participant protection and research integrity developed throughout the latter part of the 20th century, some members of the Social Sciences and Humanities communities ra…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Image manipulation as a general practice

    As managing editor, I view all manuscripts before they are assigned to an editor. Within a 4 week period, I have detected five manuscripts where photographs of either gels or plant materials were used twice or three times in the same manuscript. These manuscripts were immediately rejected. However, we are not convinced that these are cases of deliberate misleading of the scientific commu…
  • Forum discussion topics

    COPE Forum 4 March 2014: Issues related to papers submitted to “discussion” journals

    Authors in any subject area have always had a number of potential publications to choose from when they decide that they want to publish their research. As well as subscription journals to pick from, the increasing number of Open Access models has meant that the choices for authors are expanding all the time. A new type of publication that has arisen from the OA movement is the European Geoscie…
  • Case
    On-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. Howeve…
  • Case
    On-going

    Ethical concerns and the validity of documentation supplied by the authors

    We became concerned that not all of the co-authors were aware of a research paper submitted to our journal due to the difficulty receiving responses from the email addresses that had been supplied and their nature, given that the authors all worked in a hospital/academic institution. Despite repeated requests and attempts we remained dissatisfied with the responses and did not feel certain that…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Paper submitted for publication without consent or knowledge of co-authors

    An article was submitted by corresponding author (CA) on 19 December 2011. After several revisions the article was accepted for publication on 23 March 2012. The article was published online 8 May 2012.At the time of submission, CA was a PhD student at a research centre (X).On 21 November 2012, co-author A (also head of the research group) contacted the publisher and editor-in-chief…
  • Case
    On-going

    Plagiarism in a book title

    We received a complaint of plagiarism by Dr A concerning a book that has just been published. This case is ongoing since January 2012. Authors B and C published a new, very extended edition (+1000 pages), on a topic that previously was covered in part in an English book by author B (published in 2006). Part of this book was based on a German book published back in 1993 by Dr A and author…
  • Case
    On-going

    Extensive publication errors. Should we 're-publish'?

    In March 2012, our journal published a posthumous excerpt of a book by a prestigious scholar, who had died before completing the book. We chose to publish because the unfinished book represented the scholar's life work, and would not find another publication venue. The excerpt included a number of large figures, which we also published. At our publisher, we had a new production team, and…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Anonymity versus author transparency

    An editor invited an author to submit a paper to his journal. Colleagues of the author suggested “unsubmission” because it could be damaging to the author’s career. The editor contacted the publisher and requested that the paper be withdrawn. The editor then contacted the author asking if he would consider publishing the paper anonymously (ie, with no identifying names). The editor did not cons…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Compromised peer review (unpublished)

    A manuscript was flagged to editor X as having received reviewers’ reports indicating very high interest. At that point the manuscript had been through one round of review, revision and re-review, and all three reviewers were advising that the manuscript be accepted without further revision. On checking the credentials of the three reviewers, editor X was unable to find the publication r…
  • Forum discussion topics

    COPE Forum 11 September 2012: Publishing offensive material

    The topic for discussion at this Forum was ‘Publishing offensive material’. Specifically, what constitutes bad taste, indecency or obscenity? How do you deal with expletives (as part of interviews or transcripts)? Where is the line between censorship and freedom of expression?
  • Case
    On-going

    Compromised peer review system in published papers

    On noticing a high volume of submissions from corresponding author A, editor X flagged up concerns with the preferred reviewers being suggested and their comments. Author A had in most cases suggested the same preferred reviewers for each submission, preferred reviewer accounts had non-attributable email addresses, comments were being returned very quickly (within 24 hours) and were often brief…

Pages