- Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2022: Managing paper mills
…evaluation. An example of this was discussed on Retraction Watch this week. What is the most effective identifier of a paper mill [from the list cited in Renee Hoch’s talk]? I encourage editors evaluating articles for paper mill concerns to take… - News
Case Discussion: Editor and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work
…discussion document which will be ready, on our website, early this year. Nancy Chescheir on behalf of the COPE Education Subcommittee Read January 2019 COPE Digest newsletter and use the COPE… - Case
Lack of trial registration leads to new concerns about study conduct and ethical review/approval
Following publication of an article, the editors noticed that the paper reported results of a clinical trial, but no details of trial registration were included in the article. (The journal does have careful checks on trial registration by staff at submission but this paper was not well written and it took careful reading to work out that it did in fact report on a clinical trial). We co… - Case
Dealing with cases with culturally offensive content
…The Forum agreed that further guidelines will be useful. The forthcoming COPE guidelines will address some of the issues reviewed here and other resources can be found below: Simone Ragavooloo, Helen Macdonald and Kamran Abbasi, ‘Acting on historically offensive content in BMJ’s archive’, BMJ 2022; 378:o1829 doi… - News
Research Integrity, Sixth Report of Session 2017-19 from the House of Commons
…would be assured by establishing an oversight committee with responsibility for verifying that research institutions have followed appropriate methods to investigate research misconduct and report annually on compliance, according to Norman Lamb, MP and Chair of the… - Webform
COPE integrity workshop 2021
…(BST), 11:00-12:30 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)--> COPE is delighted to announce an online workshop which looks at the lessons that can be learnt from issues of concern raised to COPE's Facilitation and Integrity subcommittee. At the workshop we will: discuss the framework within which the Facilitation and… - Case
HIV homeopathy
The authors carried out a study. A homeopathic treatment was given to people with HIV/AIDs. The outcome was quality of life, as measured by a questionnaire after 1 month and 18 months of treatment. Participants were selected for inclusion if they had a HIV seropositive status at the time of study and were not taking any other kind of HIV/AIDs treatment. The participants were stratified i… - Case
Retractions of primary literature papers: how should a review journal react?
In a recent and very prominent case of publication misconduct resulting in the retraction of 12 research papers (to date), many journals have been included in ‘round-mails’ from the whistleblower and other scientists. Our journal (a reviews and features journal) has published a review from the main author associated with the misconduct, which contains reference to six of the retracted papers. - Case
A case of salami slicing
A reviewer of our journal noticed similarity between a published paper (P1) and a manuscript under review (P2). At the same time, a member of the editorial team noticed similarity between another accepted manuscript for publication (P3) and both paper P1 and manuscript P2. All three papers were submitted by the same authors based on the same trial, reporting three different endpoints measuring… - Case
Possible omission of information essential for conclusions in a research paper
In 2013, our journal published a paper describing an observational study comparing two drugs (A and B) for the management of a chronic disease over a period of 10 years. The conclusion in the paper was that mortality was higher in group A (97 deaths) compared with the other group B (52 deaths) (hazard ratio 1.76, 1.22 to 2.53; P=0.003). This analysis was done after adjustment for a large number… - Case
Inability to contact an author to obtain permission to publish
Author A was an overseas PhD student who successfully completed the PhD, and then returned home to a country with considerable political and civil unrest. It had been intended to submit a paper before author A left but time ran out. Subsequently, authors B, C, D and E, who were all involved in the work in one form or another (experimental design, performing preliminary experiments, data interpr… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum: 13 November 2017: Self-Citation: where's the line?
A recent post on Scholarly Kitchen [1] raised some interesting points about the ethics surrounding citation, and specifically self-citation. Previously, COPE has discussed related issues surrounding self-citation by journals and editors [2] and citation of preprints [3]. During this forum, we broadened the discussion… - Case
Temporary exception to double anonymised review policy
The journal conducts double-anonymous reviews of all manuscripts submitted. As part of the decision process, reviewers routinely receive a copy of the decision letter, which includes reviewers’ comments. In the transition to a new editorial staff, a change to the email template inadvertently meant that the full letter was sent out, including the corresponding author’s name. Before this was disc… - News
In the news: February Digest
…surveyed 1106 researchers from 46 countries and 14 disciplines about their experiences with peer review. Almost 58% reported receiving at least one unprofessional review. While there was no difference in the likelihood of receiving these types of reviews based on gender, race, and gender identification, white men were the least likely to report questioning their own scientific aptitude or delays in their… COPE webinar: Diversity, equity and inclusion
…Diversity, equity and inclusion in scholarly research and publishing Friday 28 May 2021, 13:00-14:30 (British Summer Time) (UTC + 1) Find out what time this is in your country Thanks to everyone who attended the webinar. The- Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2021: Authorship for sale
…the paper mills webinar, 14:00pm - 15:30pm (BST / UTC +1) on Tuesday 20 September Useful links Systematic manipulation of the publication process, COPE guidance, updated 2022 - News
In the news: May 2018 Digest
…Mattia Fosci and Rob Johnson suggests that academic reward and incentive cultures hamper efforts to create bridges between business and management researchers and society, and suggests that universities and business schools need to work more proactively to create a more inclusive and sustainable economy. - News
In the news: March Digest
…implementation plan for Plan S, resulted in large numbers being published online. A couple are linked to below, but Lisa Hinchcliffe produced a very useful summary:https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/02/11… - Case
Excessive self-citation in a book chapter
The case concerns an introductory chapter in a book. The publisher was first contacted about potential misconduct as part of a broader investigation into an academic who was a coauthor on an introductory chapter in a book. The publisher's subsequent investigation identified excessive self-citation in the work (one of the coauthors is named as an author on 12 out of 16 referenced works).… Press
…transparency and best practice released 15 September 2022 The fourth edition of the Principles represents a collective effort between the four organisations to align the principles with today’s scholarly publishing landscape. Guidance is provided on the information that should be made available on websites, peer review, access, author fees and publication ethics. The…