You are here

Guidance

Filter by topic

Filter by resource type

Search results for 'author'

Showing 1–20 of 709 results
  • Flowcharts

    Changes in authorship: Removal of author – after publication

    COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do for removal of an author after publication. Key points Ask why the author wishes to be removed from list – refer to journal guidelines orthe authorship declaration which should state that all authors meet the appropriate criteria. Ask if author suspects fraud or misconduct. More flowcharts on authorship changes…
  • Flowcharts

    Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data

    COPE's guidance as a flowchart on what to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data. Key points The instruction to reviewers should state that submitted material must be treated in confidence and may not be used in any way until it has been published. Related resources
  • Flowcharts

    Changes in authorship: Removal of author – before publication

    COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do for removal of an author before publication. Key points It is most important to check with the author(s) whose name(s) is/are being removed from the paper and get their agreement in writing. More flowcharts on authorship changes
  • Flowcharts

    Changes in authorship: Addition of extra author – before publication

    COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on the addition of an extra author before publication. Key points Major changes in response to reviewer comments, e.g. adding new data might justify the inclusion of a new author. More flowcharts on authorship changes
  • Flowcharts

    Changes in authorship: Addition of extra author – after publication

    COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on the addition of an extra author after publication. Key points Before publication, get authors to sign statement that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. Publish details of each person’s contribution to their search and publication. More flowcharts…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Removal of an author

    A paper was submitted to a journal with authors A, B, C, D and E. The paper was peer reviewed. Before acceptance, the corresponding author asked for a new author, author F, to be added, and an existing author, author C, to be removed. The editorial office asked all of the authors (authors A, B, C, D, E and F) to complete a change of authorship request form and for the corresponding…
  • Case

    Deceased author and author delaying publication

    The journal accepted a manuscript for publication with two authors. One of the authors passed away before signing the copyright. This manuscript is now ready for galley proof approval from the surviving author. Proofs were sent to the surviving author and the author that passed away as normal because the production editor assigned to this manuscript did not know that one of the authors
  • Case

    The disappearing authors

    Some time after a single authored research article was published a journal received a letter pointing out that the same article had been rejected by another journal because of unresolved authorship and acknowledgement issues. At that time the paper had 12 authors. The correspondent said that the single author had a patent application related to the topic of the paper. This was declared…
  • Case
    Closed: author misconduct

    Author misconduct

    …You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right The rector at author D’s institution contacted the editor of journal A stating that they have found what they evidently consider to be serious misconduct in an article written by author D and the rector requested author D to retract the paper from journal A but author D refused to do so. The institution contacted…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Deceased author

    After a manuscript was accepted, an author passed away before they could complete the conflict of interest statement and copyright transfer documents. The publishing company requires that all authors complete these documents prior to publishing. The other authors do not want to remove the deceased author from the manuscript. Question(s) for the COPE Forum Who…
  • Case

    Prolific authors

    We have noticed some authors who are publishing at a rate that is exceptionally high. (1) An author of a recent submission has published over 100 articles since January 2005; he had published fewer than 50 in the preceding 5 years. This is quite a sudden increase. On average, he published 1 article every 8 days in 2005, and in 2006 this increased to 1 every 4 days. The author
  • Case
    On-going

    Suspect author

    Author A has published approximately 150 original articles since ~1994, with ~100 on one particular topic. Since some of these events were up to 16 years ago, and there are no formal records from then relating to these studies, the only information we have is the memory of the editors of the affected journals in post at the time. According to their accounts, suspicions were aroused over…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Nuisance author

    …You can listen to the podcast of this case from the menu on the right An author submitted a paper which went through the review process and was rejected. He is now sending abusive emails to me, the editor, and spamming an enormous number of people in his research area and the government (he even tried to contact the royal office) as a protest. He continues to submit his paper (over 20…
  • Case

    The disgraced author

    An editorial was commissioned from a distinguished doctor who was subsequently found guilty of research misconduct overseas. There was a lack of consensus in the journal’s country as to whether this judgment was correct. The author continues to work, but is awaiting a judgment from his regulatory body. - Should the editorial be published? - Should the editorial be published with a footnote…
  • Case

    Authorship without the author’s knowledge

    A paper was rejected on the reviewer’s recommendation. The editor met one of the senior authors at a conference and out of politeness apologised for rejecting his paper. He was surprised to learn that the senior author had no knowledge of this paper and that the corresponding author had written papers using the senior author’s name without his knowledge in the past. This prompted the editor…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Omitted author

    …of the cases was "his case" and that he wanted the case and the clinical photograph of his patient to be withdrawn from the paper; alternatively, he requested being made a coauthor on the paper.The editor circulated the letter from Professor X to the publisher, the editor-elect and the editorial office. It was decided that the editor should contact the corresponding author to ask them to consider…
  • Case

    The missing author

    In March 1996, journal A published a case report about an eye condition with two authors credited, Drs X and Y, both radiologists. Exactly two years later, one of their former colleagues (Dr Z) wrote to the editor claiming that she had been responsible for the patient’s care; she was the ophthalmologist on call the night the patient was admitted. She argued that, as the clinician responsible…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Author admits failure to credit other authors

    An author submitted a manuscript and stated that he was the sole author. The manuscript received a favourable peer review and eventually was accepted. Some time after the article was published, a co-author told the author to contact the journal to correct the author list. The author of record (AOR) did this and supplied co-author names to the journal.   The editor worked with the author
  • Case

    The author who wasn’t an author

    A paper was submitted crediting three authors. The paper was sent to one of the journal’s regular statistical reviewers without noticing that she happened to be the second author.  She wrote back to say that she had not been involved in writing the manuscript, nor had she seen this paper before. She did say, however, that she had supervised the computer input of the questionnaire data…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Author impersonating corresponding author without knowledge of coauthors

    We received an article which was accepted and published after an uneventful peer review process. The article was apparently written by seven authors from two universities. As part of our routine processes, all co-authors were alerted to a submission via the email addresses provided by the submitting author. Some time after the article had been published, we received an email from…

Pages