You are here

Post-publication discussions and corrections

Journals must allow debate post publication either on their site, through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site, such as PubPeer. They must have mechanisms for correcting, revising or retracting articles after publication

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.

About this resource

Full page history

News

In the news: April 2021

Publication ethics news April 2021

Each month, COPE Council members find and share publication ethics news. This month the news includes articles on corrections, diversity and inclusion, authorship, and more.

About this resource

Full page history

Case

Author alleges discrimination by institutional report

21-03

In 2020, the corresponding author of an article published online three years previously notified the journal of an authorship conflict and explained that the institution was requesting retraction. Because authorship conflict does not typically warrant retraction, the publisher requested further details from the author and the author's institution about the conflict.

News

A vision for a more trans-inclusive publishing world: guest article

High level principles for name changes in publishing

News

Update on COPE guidance regarding author name changes

Author name changes working group

About this resource

Case

Paper published without permission or acknowledgement from institution

20-15

An author affiliated with a research institution R published two papers as a single author, one of them in a journal of publisher A. 

Case

Simultaneous submission without aiming at duplicate publication

20-12

An invite for a review was made by journal A. The first revision was done six months after submission, and the second revision two months later. Three weeks after submission of the second revision, the editor’s decision was minor revision. At this point, the corresponding author, author X, informed the editor of journal A that the authors were reluctant to respond to the comments of the second reviewer.

Pages