- Case
Using annual reviews to massage the impact factor
The editor in chief of Journal A is also on the editorial board of Journal B. Journal B publishes “annual reviews” that purport to describe recent advances in the field, but only do this by discussing and citing their own content. The editor in chief of Journal A now wants to have “annual reviews” in his journal to help increase the impact factor. In your experience, is… - CaseCase Closed
Using industry knowledge to evaluate an ethics case
A journal owned by publisher A recently posted an article critical of publisher B. Both publishers A and B are COPE members. Publisher B has already responded with several claims about the author’s methodology. Publisher A would normally defer to the journal’s editors. However, because the content of the article relates to the publishing industry, publisher A has particular insights into the to… - CaseCase Closed
Using the name of a scientific society inappropriately
A journal published an article about clinical recommendations for a condition that supposedly was the result of a consensus between two scientific societies of different medical specialties. The article underwent peer review and no problems were identified at that stage. However, about one month after publication the journal was contacted by one of the scientific societies raising concerns that… - CaseCase Closed
Victim of article theft wants correction to list their name, not retraction
Author A contacted us claiming that an article published in the journal recently by author B was stolen from an article author A had earlier submitted to two different publishers, publisher A in 2016 and publisher B in 2017. Author A provided the PDFs of the manuscripts they had submitted to those other publishers. The version submitted to us 2018 by author B was very similar to that submitted… - CaseCase Closed
WAME case
This case was posted on the WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) list-serv and the editor (from India) asked whether COPE could provide guidance. An author (who happens to also be a journal editor) submitted a manuscript to a journal listed in one of the major medical databases. Having heard nothing for several months he tried to contact the editor to discover what was happening.… - CaseCase Closed
Was this study unethical?
We reviewed and published a randomised controlled trial in which children’s exposure to parental secondhand smoke (SHS) was either sustained (usual practice control) or parents were asked to avoid smoking around their children (intervention group). The study included more than 400 children averaging 9 years old. Parents provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the ethics com… - 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: 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… - 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… - 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 - Translated resources
Webinar 2020: research and publishing ethics challenges and best practices
…China Association for Science and Technology, Taylor & Francis Group and Society of China University Journals co-organised webinar The webinar 'Research and publishing ethics: challenges and best practices' was endorsed and sponsored by China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), Taylor & Francis Group and Society of China University Journals who co-organised a series… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2020: Understanding text recycling
In 2020 we hosted a webinar with invited speakers from the Text Recycling Research Project (TRRP) to hear about their latest findings, and the ethical and practical issues involved in establishing good practice and effective policy. Watch now - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2021: Diversity, equity and inclusion
…Diversity, equity and inclusion in scholarly research and publishing This webinar, recorded May 2021, deals with the impact of discriminatory practices in editorial processes and peer review, promoting of social justice and equality in scholarly publishing, best practices around identity and name changes, including examples of implementation, and addresses hi… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2022: Managing paper mills
…Practical steps for managing paper mills September 2022 During Peer Review Week COPE hosted a webinar for journal editors and publishers on the practical steps to take in managing paper mills. Speakers described their experience of managing paper mills affecting their journals, with practical tips on how to manage systematic manipulati… - Case
What constitutes authorship?
Author X submitted a paper to another journal, and included author Y, a student in the same institute, as a courtesy. Author Y had drawn two figures for the paper and discussed some of the observations (all made by author X) with author X but the paper did not deal with the thesis research of author Y. After the original paper was returned, requiring extensive revisions, author X revised… - Translated resources
What constitutes authorship? (Chinese)
…作者身份由什么构成? COPE讨论文件 本文旨在围绕出版伦理委员会(Committee on Publication Ethics,COPE)成员最常面对的作者身份问题 激发讨论。文中探讨了有关作者身份的现有指导方针，总结了一些有助于防止发生常见问题的基本原则， 并且列出了在之前的讨论中提出的一些更棘手的问题，其中许多问题具有学科特定性并需要更细致的考 虑。COPE欢迎针对本文提供反馈，并邀请成员指出来自不同学科的进一步作者身份指南。我们鼓励期 刊编辑和出版机构作出评论（无论是否为COPE成员），同时也欢迎来自研究人员/作者和学术机构的意 见。请将所有评论意见通过电子邮件发送至COPE运营经理Natalie Ridgeway,具体联络方式如下 :http://publ… - Forum discussion topics
What does peer review mean in the arts, humanities and social sciences?
June 2020 Are there differences in gender and diversity issues in arts, humanities, and social sciences (AHSS) in peer review from other disciplines? Participants discussed this topic at the COPE Forum, June 2020. Language, quality, diversity and inclusivity in AHSS In a study by COPE in collaboration with Taylor & Francis… - 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 id… - Case
What happens when there is no local ethics committee?
A paper from Taiwan was reviewed and accepted for publication. However, one of the reviewers raised the question of ethics committee approval. When the editors checked with the authors, they responded that there is no ethics committee at their university and they were therefore not able to seek ethical approval. What is COPE’s view on this? The study was fairly straightforward involving a quest… - 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…