- Case
Sharing by a reviewer on social media
The journal’s course of action in this case needs to be guided by the objective. The point of double blind peer review is to reduce bias during the review process. While of course anonymity of the authors ends upon publication of the work, anonymity of the reviewers’ identity in a double blind peer review process typically continues after publication because of the contract that the journal… - Case
Author non-disclosure by editor in chief
Please note, this case is being submitted by the Publishing Director of the journal based on the advice of a senior COPE member because it relates to the conduct of the editor in chief of the journal. The editor in chief of the journal is aware that the case is being submitted. A letter of complaint was submitted in November 2009 relating to an editorial published in one of our… - Case
Concerns over research by an author in numerous, separate publications
The authenticity of the content of numerous publications by Author K has been questioned by ‘concerned researchers’ in an anonymous email sent to the Editor of Journal A in December 2009. The email noted that author K had been publishing articles in numerous journals that “report remarkable findings that watching humorous films, drinking deep-sea water, exposure to road traffic,… - Case
Submission of article by ghost author
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance. This seems to be a case primarily of… - Case
Authorship dispute unsatisfactorily resolved by institution
…contributed to the writing of the text. The claimant provided evidence of this in the form of screenshots of a submission confirmation email and subsequent rejection email from another journal for a manuscript with a similar title, a Word document labelled as the claimant’s PhD thesis and details of overlap with the published paper, and a screenshot of an email reported to have been sent by the claimant to… - Event
COPE Forum: Tuesday 2 June 2020
Our June Forum, held by webinar, will follow the usual format where we have a discussion topic, followed by COPE members' cases presented for discussion and advice from all those participating in the Forum. #C0PEForum… - Case
A case report of an experimental therapy, submitted by the patient
… We wrote to the lead author to clarify these two points, and the lead author wrote back to say that he himself was the patient, and that he wanted to spread the word about this dramatic treatment and the “membranotrophic drug.” The article had previously been rejected by four biomedical journals. It remains unclear whether the patient knew this was an n of 1 trial. He is delighted with… - Case
Article sent to reviewer by mistake
…presented issues that had previously been addressed by others as if it were their own work. If the article had not yet been published, reviewer A requested that publication be delayed until their concerns had been addressed. The editors wrote back to reviewer A saying that the article had already been accepted for publication and that it would be unfair to the authors to delay publication, as it… - News
COPE Forum Meetings 2016
The quarterly COPE Forum meetings, where we discuss cases submitted by members, will take place in Februray, May, August and November. The Forums will be by webinar, except for the August Forum, which will be a face to face meeting in London during the INANE conference. 3-4.30pm (GMT) Friday 12 February 2016 by Webinar8-9.30am (BST) Friday 6 May 2016 by Webinar2-3.30pm… - Case
Allegation of reviewer malpractice
A member of the editorial board of Journal A was approached by an overseas colleague with a strange tale. An epidemiological study had been conducted in the community around an industrial facility, funded by a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers. The study concluded that health effects in the community were related to exposures emanating from the facility. A paper based on the study was submitted to… - Case
Peer reviewer contacted by author
…the journal but provides no guidance about how to handle a situation in which an author, in good faith, approaches the reviewer. This may be particularly common in smaller scientific communities. Question(s) for the COPE Forum • Does the reviewer have an obligation to conceal their status when asked by the author? • Alternately, would it be better to acknowledge their… - Case
Review of a book written by an editor of a journal
The editor decided not to solicit a review of the book authored by the co-editor because of the conflict of interest for the editor as well as potential book reviewers. Moreover, there are at least two other scholarly journals in the field that could review this book. On the other hand, an edited anthology in which an article written by the co-editor appears seems to be a likely… - Event
ALPSP Publication Ethics Course: Fraud and Misconduct.
This course, by ALPSP, will cover how to detect and deal effectively with possible misconduct and show the importance of having sound ethical policies. While the principles and theories covered are applicable across most publication types, some issues covered will be particularly relevant to… - Event
COPE Forum: Friday 6 March 2020
Our March Forum, held by webinar, will follow the usual format where we have a discussion topic, followed by members' cases presented for discussion and advice from all those participating in the Forum. Our discussion topic for this March Forum will be 'Editing of reviewer comments'. #C0PEForum… - Case
Seven plagiarized manuscripts in one month by the same corresponding author
In one month we have received 11 manuscripts (9 case reports, 1 original study and 1 letter) written by authors from a European Union country. The manuscripts were submitted by the same corresponding author (author A) who was also the first author in all of the 11 manuscripts. Another author was the second author (author B) in 10 of the manuscripts. There were two other authors (authors C and… - Case
A first report, not followed by a second
In 1984, journal X published a brief report of a randomised trial as a letter to the editor. No full publication of this trial followed, despite calls for this from colleagues in the field. It took the intervention of a regional research ethics committee and a dean to persuade the investigators to write a final manuscript.This paper has still not been submitted for publication, although some of… - Event
COPE Forum November 2017
Our COPE Forum will be held by webinar and is open to COPE members. Taking part in the Forum allows members to contribute to, as well as learn from, the cases being discussed. Register now as the Forum is limited to 100 attendees. We will also be discussing Self-Citation: Where's the Line? during the… - News
Case discussion: Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company
Case Summary Case 14-07 Authors' contributions and involvement by medical communications company An employee of a medical communications company contacted a journal’s editorial office. For several manuscripts, the employee had helped develop the… - Case
Ethical concerns and the validity of documentation supplied by the authors
…that all of the authors were aware of the paper. We therefore requested further documentation signed by all of the authors, but all of the signatures appeared to be signed by the same person, and hand writing analysis suggested this was highly likely. In addition, the statement from the ethics committee also had a similar signature. The letter from the ‘head’ of the ethics committee was on blank… - Case
Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern
…editors of the journal are unsure how best to proceed with this request. They believe the article should not be retracted (no unethical misconduct was committed by the author as far as they are aware, and the article did go through peer review with two reviewers having minor corrections and recommending the editors publish the article, which they accepted), as the reasons stated in the letter for…