You are here

Guidance

Filter by topic

Filter by resource type

Showing 141–160 of 208 results
  • Case

    An authorship dispute and a question about when a paper is considered published

     Authors A and B submitted a paper PV1 to an international conference which was accepted by the editor E of the conference proceedings. The copyright of the paper was assigned to the publishers PC of the conference proceedings. The editor E of the conference proceedings is also the editor of an international journal J published by PJ. The editor E invited author A to consider submitting a revis…
  • Case

    Unethical withdrawal of a paper

    The terms author A and author B will be used to refer to the corresponding and non-corresponding authors, respectively, of the paper in question. The term Editor will be used for Editor A of our journal and Editor B of the other journal involved. The term Editorial Assistant will be used to refer to the person who is in charge of correspondence for our journal. Author A presented a paper…
  • Case

    Failure to ask permission

    I am a trainer and author of books on medical writing. It was brought to my attention that a chapter in a German-language book published in Switzerland was based almost entirely on my teaching. The first author is director of a privately funded research institution and the second author a member of staff. The second author attended one of my courses. There is a general statement at the beginnin…
  • Case

    A breach of intellectual property rights?

    We recently published article A by author group X on our website ahead of print publication and subsequently received a formal complaint from author group Y alleging that the paper constitutes a breach of their intellectual property rights. Group Y state that the described work is based on a jointly developed concept, initially resulting in a joint report (published 2004). In their view,…
  • Case

    Author did not see reviews or revisions to the manuscript and did not give approval for publication

    Approximately 1 year after publication of an article, we received a letter from one of the authors saying that they had not seen the reviews of the paper, the revisions of the paper or approved the final manuscript for publication. This was subsequently confirmed by the other authors who said that contact with the complainant had “broken down” and that the corresponding author had indicated tha…
  • Case

    Plagiarism in a case report

    I received a phone call from the first Author (A) of a case report published in our journal in 2005, who informed us that he had received a letter from an Author (B) of a research letter which had been published in another journal in 2000, stating that 12–15 sentences from the research letter had been copied in the case report. Having compared the papers, about…
  • Case

    Simultaneous publication

    About a month after our journal (Journal A) published a paper (Paper X), the journal received emails from readers that Paper X was very similar to a paper (Paper Y) that had just been published by another journal (Journal B). Some of these emails were sent to both journal offices. Paper X was submitted to Journal A a few days before Paper Y was submitted to Journal B and Paper X wa…
  • Case

    Publication of papers from industry sponsored symposium

    Our scientific/medical Society added a Special Symposium to its Annual Meeting Program. The symposium organiser, who is an academic member of the Society, invited seven speakers, all from academic institutions, in addition to himself to speak at the symposium. Support for the symposium as a whole was solicited independently by the Development Committee of the Society and had no influence on the…
  • Case

    How many “mistakes” are too many?

    We published a randomised trial by six authors. Some years later, we received a letter from a researcher who had been looking into the trial in the context of a meta-analysis. She noted “implausibilities of serious concern”, including “a highly unusual balance in the distribution of baseline characteristics”, 95% CIs that were non-symmetrical about the effect estimate, and use of a…
  • Case

    Randomisation and ethics of pilot trials

    We received a paper with potentially important results. After review and revision, we accepted the paper. On further reflection, and asking more of the authors, we became concerned. It is an RCT and the only protocol available was slim but appeared authentic. There were two protocols: one for a pilot trial and, if that was positive, a second protocol aimed to randomise more people. One residual…
  • Case

    Incorrect allegations from the head of an institute?

    After a number of appeals and revisions, and having satisfied ourselves about the results being “too good to be true”, we eventually accepted a paper. In September 2007, we received a letter from the head of the institute (and also a member of the university ethics committee) expressing concern about the paper. The allegations were: the funding source could not be that acknowledged; the authors…
  • Case

    Possible plagiarism case

    One of the referees of our journal has brought to our attention a potential case of plagiarism. The referee feels that the a manuscript submitted to our journal plagiarises an article published in another journal. The authors are from an institute in a far-eastern country. We would be grateful if COPE could provide an opinion on this issue, as well as advice on what would be the b…
  • Case

    Ethical dilemma involving religious beliefs

    The editor and co-editors of a book have a query concerning an ethical dilemma involving possible authors for a book chapter. The book concerns certain diseases in pregnancy and the authors have been approached to contribute a chapter. Both authors are apparently deeply religious and have expressed a strong concern about contributing to a book in which views may be expressed that are aga…
  • Case

    Sponsorship, ethical approval and consent for study done as part of an expanded access program

    We received a paper describing the results of an analysis of pathogen gene sequences from patients who had been given an investigational drug as treatment for their infection. The study had been done in Europe. One reviewer said that the paper did not explain whether the patients had been treated in the context of a trial or not and that no information about study sponsorship, ethical approval…
  • Case

    Inadvertent discovery of salami submission

    The journal submitting this case to COPE sent a paper [paper 1] to a reviewer who wrote this in the review: “…That apart, this manuscript seems to be another report of the already published **** trial, looking at the data from a slightly different angle. I am not convinced, however, that the data is worthy of so many submissions.” And, in a separate email to the…
  • Case

    Controversy regarding ownership of a device

    A paper was submitted which described the outcomes of a clinical trial evaluating a particular device. The device was claimed to represent a placebo version of an active device intervention. The paper was reviewed fairly critically and one reviewer pointed out that from the reference list it did not seem that the authors had developed this type of placebo device, while the title of their paper…
  • Case

    Signing on behalf of other authors

    The editors received a manuscript from a Far Eastern country ready to accept. The senior author (who has spent a lot of time in the West) was in the US when the editors asked for final signatures to be sent.  The senior author instructed his team to collect and fax signatures while he was away and this was sent to the editors. When the signatures were examined by the editors, it appeared…
  • Case

    Effect of the British Human Tissue Acts on biological monitoring

    Biological monitoring is a common procedure in assessing the dose of contaminants from a workplace atmosphere.  It may include measuring a contaminant, such as lead in blood, or a resulting metabolic product, such as mandelic acid in urine following styrene exposure. A related process is using adhesive tape to strip the surface layer of a small area of skin to measure the dermal deposit.  Clear…
  • Case

    Confidentiality and privacy issue

    A manuscript was submitted from UK authors. The study was a case series of infants with a particular condition. A table in the manuscript contains descriptive data which are critically important for the readers with respect to understanding the risk of this condition in young infants and the likelihood of abuse. The question is whether this table violates the law with respect to confiden…
  • Case

    Lack of patient consent for a case report, patient confidentiality

    A case report was submitted to journal X reporting on a child who had been admitted to hospital suffering an injury, which the doctors suspected resulted from a deliberate cigarette burn. This was not proved until the child returned to hospital with other non-accidental injuries, and following a full criminal investigation the child’s parents were convicted of child abuse. Patient consen…

Pages