- Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2016: Who's reviewing the reviewers?
…Download presentation: Who's reviewing the reviewers? [PDF, 740Kb]… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2016: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions
…Download presentation: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions [PDF, 731Kb] … - CaseCase Closed
Author requests permission to publish review comments
An author submitted a Forum manuscript critiquing an article published in the journal six years previously. The Forum manuscript was reviewed by three reviewers who all recommended rejection, and was evaluated by an associate editor and a senior editor, who rejected the manuscript on the grounds that the reviewers were unconvinced by the critique and felt that it did not really advance the subj… - CaseCase 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… - CaseCase Closed
Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
A prospective author contacted the editorial office of a medical journal to request that an intended submission was not reviewed or consulted on by experts involved in a number of published guidelines on the topic of the paper. The author named some of these experts, which included members of the journal’s editorial board (including editor A). The author justified this request by explain… - CaseCase Closed
Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process
Our journal uses an internally transparent process where throughout the editor or peer review process, authors, editors and reviewers are all aware of the identities of who is involved. Reviewers are also told—when initially solicited to do a peer review—that they will be named on the final article manuscript as a reviewer. Prior to publication, the pre-print version of a text is sent to review… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 9 September 2015: Who “owns” peer review?
Two trends have recently come together within scholarly publication; open review, and the desire to give credit to reviewers. At the convergence are organizations like Publons and Academic Karma who wish to openly acknowledge the work of peer-reviewers by recording, not only the amount, but also, in some circumstances, the content of individuals’ peer-review activity. Academics may view service… - 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
Australian Seminar 2014: New guidelines from COPE, ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, whistleblowers and more
…Download presentation: New guidelines from COPE: ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, whistleblowers and more {PDF, 1354 KB]… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2013: COPE’s new ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
…Download presentation:COPE’s new ethical guidelines for peer reviewers: background, issues and evolution [PDF 400KB]… - Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2015: Ethical peer review in a changing and challenging scholarly publication world
…Download presentation: Ethical peer review in a changing and challenging scholarly publication world [PDF, 998KB]… - Translated resources
COPE同行评审专家道德指南
COPE同行评审专家道德指南 COPE理事会 同行评审专家在确保学术记录的诚信方面发挥着作用。同行评审过程很大程度上取决于学术界 的信任以及积极参与，并需要参与各方都以负责任和讲道德的态度行事。同行评审专家在同行 评审过程中发挥着中心和关键的作用，但却可能在担当职责的同时并未获得任何指引，也没有意 识到他们的道德义务。期刊有义务为同行评审提供透明的政策，而审稿人有义务道德地、负责任 地进行评审。期刊与审稿人之间的清楚沟通对于促进一致、公平且及时的评审至关重要。COPE 听取了成员关于同行评审问题的情况意见并以COPE论坛参与人员的集体经验和智能作为指南 的部分基础。希望指南能够为研究人员提供有用的指导，成为编辑和出版商指导其审稿人的参 考，并作为机构培养学生和研究人员的教育资源。 For the latest version (English language) of… - CaseCase Closed
Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication
A paper was submitted to our journal. The associate editor assigned to the paper immediately assigned a reviewer who he knew was well qualified to give a good review, as they had worked with the authors before. The editor did think it odd that the reviewer was not an author on this particular paper, given the close collaboration. However, when invited, the reviewer (R1), did not flag up any con… - CaseCase Closed
Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality
Soon after rejecting a paper—after it underwent peer review but before discussion at the manuscript meeting—the author wrote to tell me that he was asked questions “about the manuscript” at a presentation at a national meeting. The author stated: “A member of the audience addressed questions to me from a copy of the manuscript, and not from the talk I gave. I had to ask him to say nothing furth… - CaseCase Closed
Online posting of confidential draft by peer reviewer
Shortly before publication, I received an email from the authors of a systematic review telling me that a version of the paper as first submitted to the journal for peer review had appeared on the website of a campaign group based in the USA. It was clear that the version of the document posted on the website was the same as the version supplied to the journal's peer reviewers. Further investig… - CaseOn-going
Two reviewer reports contain a significant amount of verbatim textual overlap
Two of four reviewer reports received by the editor-in-chief of a journal contained a significant amount of verbatim textual overlap. Although of the same native (not English) language, the two reviewers are affiliated to institutions in different countries. The reports were submitted to the journal within 5 days of each other. Both reviewers suggested rejection of the submission. Separa… - CaseCase Closed
Ethical obligation to find reviewers
An associate editor handling a paper for this journal reported to the editor-in-chief that he had not yet been able to recruit a single reviewer—all those who have been contacted had declined or not responded. The paper is in scope for the journal, it seems of reasonably quality from a brief read and the associate editor is appropriate; but this is a small and specialised field, and finding exp… - CaseCase Closed
Department notification regarding sensitive topic
An essay was submitted to a specialty medical journal. In the essay, the author described an ethical dilemma—involving patient care—encountered while in medical school. The manuscript received favourable reviews, although the reviewers expressed concern about the author’s career if the essay was published. The editor called the author to discuss the ramifications of publication, and then the au… - CaseCase Closed
Complaint regarding letters to the editor
Our journal routinely sends letters commenting on published articles to the authors of those articles. This gives the authors an opportunity to respond to any criticisms. The letters and the responses are then considered together and we make a decision on which ones to publish. If a letter is not selected for publication, our usual practice is to send the author's response to the person… - CaseCase 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…