You are here

Intellectual property

All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licenses, should be clearly described. In addition, any costs associated with publishing should be obvious to authors and readers. Policies should be clear on what counts as prepublication that will preclude consideration. What constitutes plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication should be specified

Our core practices

Core practices are the policies and practices journals and publishers need, to reach the highest standards in publication ethics. We include cases with advice, guidance for day-to-day practice, education modules and events on topical issues, to support journals and publishers fulfil their policies.
News

Case discussion: Suspected plagiarism

Case 19-04 Suspected plagiarism

A single author submitted a paper to a journal. A similarity check revealed 48% similarity with another published paper. The published paper was by different authors—5 in total. The similarities between the papers were in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. The submitting author did not reference the published article.

News

In the news: May Digest

Intellectual property

In a discussion paper posted on SSRN, Diana Simon, a Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, explores whether it is fair or helpful to try to generalise attitudes toward plagiarism across cultures?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377725

About this resource

Full page history

  • 19 June 2019

    Added body text

About this resource

Full page history

  • 12 June 2019

    Added body text

Case

Suspected plagiarism

19-04

A single author submitted a paper to our journal. A similarity check revealed 48% similarity with another published paper. The published paper was by different authors—5 in total. The similarities between the papers were in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. The submitting author did not reference the published article.

We queried the corresponding author but have not received a response. 

About this resource

Author Developed by COPE Council in collaboration with Springer Nature
Version 1 November 2018
How to cite this
COPE Council. Systematic manipulation of the publication process. Version 1. 2018 https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.23

Our COPE materials are available to use under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Non-commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works —
You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. We ask that you give full accreditation to COPE with a link to our website: publicationethics.org

Full page history

  • 12 February 2021

    Revision to title in line with the new All Flowcharts PDF

  • 11 February 2021

    Sabah title

  • 11 February 2021

    Sabah title

Case

Possible plagiarism

19-03

We received an email from a whistleblower notifying us about possible plagiarism in two chapters published by us, both authored by the same two authors. The whistleblower accused the authors of substantial plagiarism.

News

In the news: September 2018 Digest

Peer review processes

Is there a problem around diversity and inclusion in peer review?
#PeerReviewWeek18
https://twitter.com/PeerRevWeek/status/1031911897149394944

Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/08/29/400515

Pages