You are here

Guidance

Filter by topic

Filter by resource type

Showing 1–20 of 35 results
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 6 March 2020: Editing of reviewer comments

    …Introduction The topic for discussion at our March 2020 COPE Forum asked questions around the editing of reviewer comments. Peer reviewers are asked to contribute intellectual work to assess and improve scholarly publications. As with all work, the quality and characteristics of peer reviews vary. Editors responsibilities include support not only to the peer reviewers who typica…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 2 June 2020: What does peer review mean in the arts, humanities and social sciences?

    The topic for discussion at our June 2020 COPE Forum asked the question: are there differences in gender and diversity issues in arts, humanities, and social sciences in peer review from other disciplines?  In the recent study by COPE in collaboration with Taylor & Francis on the arts, humanities and social science (AHSS) disciplines, respondents focused on a number of language, qual…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 11 November 2019: Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making

    Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has advanced steadily over the past several years, and has started to introduce data-driven solutions to many processes throughout the publication process. AI tools can be developed to provide guidance to humans based on relevant data, or AI may lend toward automation of some processes without human intervention. Some processes already being considered fo…
  • Discussion documents

    Predatory publishing

    Much has been written about ‘predatory publishing’ over the past decade. In this discussion document, COPE will describe the basic phenomenon, identify the key issues, describe the impact on the various stakeholders involved, analyse proposed interventions and solutions, and present COPE’s perspective on addressing the problem going forward. This discussion will synonymously refer to predatory…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum: 13 November 2017: Self-Citation: Where's the line?

    A recent post on Scholarly Kitchen [1] raised some interesting points about the ethics surrounding citation, and specifically self-citation. Previously, COPE has discussed related issues surrounding self-citation by journals and editors [2] and citation of preprints [3]. During this forum, we broadened the discussion to include some of the questions related to self-citation by authors in schola…
  • Discussion documents

    Citation manipulation

    Citation manipulation refers to the following types of behaviour: • Excessive citation of an author’s research by the author (ie, self-citation by authors) as a means solely of increasing the number of citations of the author’s work; • Excessive citation of articles from the journal in which the author is publishing a research article as a means solely of increasing the number of…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 11 February 2019: Diversity and inclusion in research publishing

    It is widely recognised that teams and organisations in all sectors of society perform better and make better decisions when they embrace diversity and inclusion in their culture and, particularly, among their leadership. Diversity refers to having a wide range of human differences in the composition of a team. Inclusion, inclusivity, or inclusiveness refers to ensuring that all team members fe…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 5 November 2018: Predatory Publishing

    Predatory publishing is generally defined as for-profit open access journal publication of scholarly articles without the benefit of peer review by experts in the field or the usual editorial oversight of the journals in question. The journals have no standards and no quality control and frequently publish within a very brief period of time while claiming that articles are peer-reviewed. There…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 30 April 2018: Preprints: continuing the conversation

    Preprint platforms have been common in physics and mathematics but the preprint landscape is changing rapidly with new platforms emerging across various disciplines. This raises opportunities for discussion across communities and for all those involved: preprint platforms, journals, authors, funders and institutions. COPE has facilitated this discussion previously via an earlier forum di…
  • Discussion documents

    Preprints

    Version 1: March 2018 Background/Context A preprint is a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process. While the sharing of manuscripts via preprint platforms has been common in some disciplines (such as physics and mathematics) for many years, uptake in other dis…
  • Discussion documents

    Who 'owns' peer reviews? September 2017

    Introduction Two trends have recently come together within scholarly publication: open peer review and the desire to give recognition to the work peer reviewers do. At the convergence are organisations 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 o…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 26 February 2018: Expressions of concern

    …How should journals use expressions of concern? They are “used to raise awareness to a possible problem in an article”. They are a relatively new, rare, and non-standardized type of editorial notice compared to corrections or retractions and “considerable differences in policy and practice remain between journals”. Journals are grappling with when expressions of concern are appropriate and wh…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 24 July 2017: Preprints: what are the issues?

    Preprints and working papers have been posted and shared for many years. They report research results that have not undergone peer review, although in many cases the authors also submit to a journal (before, after or at the same time as making a preprint available). In the past 5 years, the number of preprint servers and preprints has expanded and new disciplines, notably biology and life scien…
  • Discussion documents

    Best practice in theses publishing. March 2017

    Introduction Traditionally, theses for higher degrees were published by universities in hard copy only. Now increasingly, these are also archived and may be made freely available via university repositories. They may or may not have associated licenses such as those from Creative Commons which also allow reuse. Questions have arisen at COPE forums and other venues…
  • Discussion documents

    Handling competing interests. January 2016

    Introduction Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) are ubiquitous. One definition is as follows: “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organizat…
  • Discussion documents

    Addressing ethics complaints from complainants who submit multiple issues. March 2015

    Background On occasion a journal may get not one, but a series of complaints from the same source. Complaints may be directed at an author, an editor, or the journal in general. If these complaints turn out to be well founded, investigations should proceed as warranted. However, there are also cases where a complainant makes repeated allegations against a journal, editor, or author that…
  • Discussion documents

    Authorship

    This document, based on the COPE Discussion Document titled What Constitutes Authorship? resulted from a review of the COPE Forum cases related to authorship, comments from COPE members related to the discussion document, and a desire to move past the stage of discussion to providing practical advice on addressing the most common issues around authorship. We are therefore providing specific gui…
  • Discussion documents

    Responding to anonymous whistleblowers, January 2013

    This paper aims to stimulate discussion about how editors should respond to emails from whistle blowers. We encourage journal editors and publishers to comment (whether or not they are COPE members), and also welcome comments from researchers/authors and academic institutions. Please send us comments. http://publicationethics.org/contact-us
  • Discussion documents

    How should editors respond to plagiarism? April 2011

    Summary This paper aims to stimulate discussion about how editors should respond to plagiarism. Different types of plagiarism are described in terms of their: extent, originality of the copied material, context, referencing, intention, author seniority, and language. Journal responses to plagiarism are also described including: educating authors, contacting authors’ inst…
  • Discussion documents

    COPE Forum 12 February 2016: Data sharing

    Data sharing is increasingly viewed as an essential step in improving research transparency and reproducibility (Taichman et al, 2016; Vickers, 2006). There has been a lot of discussion on the imperative for data sharing in the biomedical arena, particularly of publically funded research. As a result, there are many disciplines where proposals for data sharing are being discussed. Publis…

Pages