- Case
An ambiguous plagiarism case
A paper was published in journal A. The plagiarism check tool did not show any similarity during the peer review process. Some time after publication of the paper, the editor-in-chief was contacted by an author who had published a paper in journal B. They claimed that the paper published in journal A was plagiarised from their MSc research project thesis and asked journal A to ret… - News
In the news: April 2018 Digest
…draws the parallel with and speculates that Sci-Hub may be involved, although not named in the indictment.https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/03/28/51123/ Authors of premier medical textbook didn’t disclose $11 million in industry payments Researchers led by Brian Piper evaluated financial… - Case
What constitutes authorship?
Author X submitted a paper to another journal, and included author Y, a student in the same institute, as a courtesy. Author Y had drawn two figures for the paper and discussed some of the observations (all made by author X) with author X but the paper did not deal with the thesis research of author Y. After the original paper was returned, requiring extensive revisions, author X revised… - Case
Possible plagiarism
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. In both chapters there were, indeed, certain unattributed parts of the text, although the majority was properly attributed. Some of the unattributed parts were authored by… - Case
Corrigendum or erratum?
The publisher of a journal has found a spelling mistake in a published manuscript (an abbreviation was explained incorrectly in the original published manuscript). Having in mind COPE's guidelines, "The term erratum usually refers to a production error, caused by the journal. The term corrigendum (or correction) usually refers to an author error", is a corrigendum the proper way to correct this… - Case
Handling undisclosed peer reviewer conflict
Some authors from a company recommended a peer reviewer on submitting their manuscript, who was then asked to review the manuscript. This reviewer recommended acceptance without change. One other reviewer recommended major revision (a methodological reviewer not a content expert) and the third reviewer recommended rejection. The editor found it unusual for a review to recommend acceptance witho… - News
Predatory behaviour in publication ethics
…conference. The two types of organisation operate in a similar way and are often branches of the same businesses. They again use direct and unsolicited marketing to contact academics, promise prestigious events, and charge large fees. Think.Check.Attend provides resources to identify and avoid predatory conferences. While COVID-19 suspended the possibility of… - Case
Ethical approval for a study
We had a presubmission enquiry from a group regarding a paper reporting what seemed to be an uncontrolled trial in infertile women who were given soft tissue physical therapy. The authors wanted to know if we would be interested in their paper; if it was a problem that the trial had not been registered (because, they claimed, it was not a trial as no control group was used); and if it was a pro… - News
COPE Trustee
…COPE and ensure its financial stability (see COPE governance for more detail). Key responsibilities The Trustees meet four times a year; three of the meetings are held by webinar, with the other being a 3-5 day residential meeting incorporating Strategy, Trustee Board, Council, and Subcommittee meetings. The residential… - News
In the news: October Digest
…="https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/China-strengthens-campaign-against-scientific/97/i35" target="_blank">https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/China-strengthens-campaign-against-scientific/97/i35 Interviews with 21 journal editors from North America across multiple disciplines about their thoughts about text recycling (AKA "Self-plagiarism") shows a wide-range of tolerance for the practice, from tolerance of it in some circumstances to absolute… - News
In the news: February Digest
…2uejbs1hsqt31-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RHSPlanSInterimJan19.pdf" target="_blank">https://5hm1h4aktue2uejbs1hsqt31-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RHSPlanSInterimJan19.pdf Peer review BMC Biology has a policy of allowing authors of rejected papers to have their peer review results to submit to another journal. Sounds good in principle, per… - News
Case Discussion: Withdrawal of paper at proof stage
Case Summary Case 19-11 An original paper was submitted to a journal, peer reviewed, revised by the authors, and accepted by the manuscript editor. It was scheduled for publication 3 months later. After the paper was copyedited and typeset, the corresponding author was… - Case
Deception in submitting manuscript for publication
A manuscript was submitted to my journal. The author, on his own accord, submitted the manuscript for review to several reviewers under the guise that this was sent by me. The author sent the following explanation: “In some of our previous encounters, you have indicated that finding sufficient cooperative reviewers has been a problem for you. In order to provide you with some help in thi… - Forum discussion topics
Ethical aspects of conference proceedings
September 2022 Watch the introduction to the topic "Ethical aspects of conference proceedings" with COPE Council member, Howard Browman. - Forum discussion topics
Author behavioural misconduct
December 2022 Increasingly, journals and publishers are being notified or even asked to act when authors – or others involved in the publication process – are accused or convicted of crimes or various forms of “behavioural misconduct,” such as abuse or harassment. For the purposes of this discussion, “behavioural misconduct” is defined as… - Case
Author cannot be located
A manuscript was submitted to a journal and after the review and revision process, it was accepted for publication. However, after the manuscript was accepted for publication, the coauthor stopped answering emails and therefore did not sign the copyright form, or affirm acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of authorship. The journal and production staff tried contacting the coauthor on… - Case
Handling an undisclosed conflict of interest which is attracting controversy
In summer 2023, an author informed the journal that they had unintentionally neglected to declare a conflict of interest on all of the five articles that they had published in the journal between 2019 and 2022. They had been made aware of this on social media, in the context of a widespread movement to discredit members of an emerging healthcare profession that they represent. They stated that… - Event
COPE webinar: Enhancing partnerships of institutions and journals
This webinar has ended Watch the webinar recording which includes presentations by the speakers and the question and answer session. - Case
Plagiarism versus questionable research writing practice
The authors of a paper were asked to explain alleged plagiarism in a submitted and subsequently accepted manuscript. This was based on a Turnitin report showing 28% similarity between the submitted manuscript (Author B) and a previously published paper (Author A), and 37% similarity between a published manuscript (Author A) and a submitted manuscript (Author B). The authors came back with an… - News
Complaints and appeals
…upcoming COPE Forum and more. Read April 2018 Digest: Complaints and Appeals…