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.

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

High level principles for name changes in publishing


Update on COPE guidance regarding author name changes

Author name changes working group

About this resource


Paper published without permission or acknowledgement from institution


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


Simultaneous submission without aiming at duplicate publication


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.


Case discussion: repeated complaints about meta-analysis

Case: how to respond to a reader's repeated concerns


About this resource

Full page history

  • 14 September 2021

    Reassigned to Forum discussion topic filter


How to respond to a reader's repeated concerns


A meta-analysis was published in a journal ahead of print, and then subsequently in print. Several months later, the journal was contacted by a faculty member at a university not connected with the study. The reader outlined three general concerns with the meta-analysis. The concerns were discussed by the editorial team, including the statistical editor, and it was decided that the overall results of the meta-analysis were not affected.