- Case
Concerns over the withdrawal of a complaint
The journal received multiple complaints from two ‘whistleblowers’ in country A regarding the methodology presented in an article published in 2021. The Editors began an investigation into the paper, using evidence provided by the whistleblowers. The Editors felt that based on the provided evidence, an investigation should be carried out. The authors, who were also from country A, were made awa… - 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
Vacancies on COPE Council
…least 1 year. COPE Council is an active, working council. Council meets three times a year; two of the meetings are held by webinar, with the other being a 2–3 day residential meeting incorporating subcommittee meetings and a strategy day. Every other year there is an additional, in person, residential meeting. It is expected that all COPE Council members will attend all of these meetings.… - Case
Sufficient consent?
…the editor should go to the hospital’s clinical director, or the Dean or Head of Department. It should be passed up the line and must be followed up. This type of verbal consent is unacceptable, there should be a detailed audit trail. The author should receive a stern letter outlining the reasons this is unacceptable and the… - Case
Inadequately supervised research?
A piece of qualitative research was submitted that looked at the experiences of families facing a particular illness. The first author was both the main carer for the families and the researcher. She conducted and analysed all the interviews. Nobody else seemed to have analysed the verbatim transcripts, although two senior authors did help with analysis of the data. The reviewers and editorial… - Discussion documents
How should editors respond to plagiarism? April 2011
…Contents Aims and scope Background Introduction Types of plagiarism 2.1 Extent 2.2 Originality of copied material 2.3 Position / context 2.4 Referencing / attribution 2.5 Intention 2.6 Author seniority 2.7 Language Detecting and responding to plagiarism Screening for plagiarism Defining… - Research
Exploring publication ethics in the arts, humanities, and social sciences: A COPE study 2019
…fabrication (31%). Recognising and dealing with bias in peer reviewer comments was an issue encountered by 55% of journal editors. Journal editors felt least confident in dealing with data and/or image fabrication issues (24%), fraudulent submissions (23%), and intellectual property and copyright issues (21%). - News
Guest article: Self-plagiarism in philosophy
…a contested one, but it generally refers to cases where an author publishes an article a second time without disclosing the first (redundant or duplicate publication) or to cases where there is an excessive undisclosed re-use of some portion of one’s previously-published work (text recycling). Despite - Event
15th EASE General Assembly and Conference
The next EASE Conference will be the 15th EASE General Assembly and Conference to be held online from Wednesday to Friday, 23-25 June 2021 on the theme: Promoting sustainability in scholarly publishing: the role of editors The - Event
COPE Forum: March 2023
…%3ESubmit%20a%20case%26nbsp%3B%3C%2Fa%3E%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%0A%3Cp%3EThe%20deadline%20to%20submit%20a%20case%20for%20this%20Forum%26nbsp%3Bis%3A%20Thursday%2024%20November%202022.%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%0A%2D%2D%3E--> Forum agenda On Thursday 23 March 2023 the COPE Forum will be held at 15:00-16:30pm (GMT / UTC) 1. Update on COPE activities Update on COPE activities by the Chair. - Case
A survey of doctors’ opinions, with no IRB approval or written consent
A doctor who trained in country A took the licensing examinations in country B because he wished to work in country B. After the examinations, he carried out a survey (with a very poor response rate) of other doctors who had taken the same national licensing examination. The survey asked four major questions: How representative was the examination relative to the scope of your reading?… - Case
How to handle offers of promotion of authorship for sale
We have been approached via email by a company promoting authorship for sale. The email describes the service as providing 'co-authorship' of an existing article that has been submitted for publication in an indexed journal. The articles cover a range of disciplines and the company claims a high success rate for publication. Question for COPE Council: What steps sho… - Case
Author refusal to sign an ethics form
A journal has received a submission which is based on patient data (CT scan images). The data have been found to have been taken from an open-source repository. The authors are refusing to sign an Ethics Approval and Consent for Authors form. Questions for the Forum Is a signature in these cases compulsory? How would the Forum recommend we hand… - Case
Authorship dispute
A paper submitted to an international medical journal was reviewed externally and the authors were subsequently invited to submit a revised version. The initial submission included authors from two different research institutions and one author from a corporate sponsor. The initial submission was accompanied by an appropriate description of the individual authors’ contributions, a negative conf… - Case
Post-publication evaluation and manufacturer information
An online post-publication literature evaluation service, aiming to highlight the best papers in medicine, received an evaluation of a cost effectiveness study assessing a new therapy. The evaluator quoted estimated amounts of cost saved when using the new therapy compared with other therapies, naming the manufacturer of the new therapy. The evaluator declared in his/her competing interests tha… - Guidelines
Journals’ Best Practices for ensuring consent for publishing medical case reports: guidance from COPE
…case histories, photos, x-rays, or genetic pedigrees. A list of 23 potential identifiers has been published in BioMed Central’s Trials. Journals should not themselves collect the signed consent forms, because the receipt and storage of confidential patient information could subject them to cumbersome security requirements and potential legal liability under applicable privacy or patient… - Case
Reviewer citation manipulation
This is a general scenario which has been observed in increasing numbers at our journal. We are finding that some reviewers provide a referee’s report which include a request to cite a number of papers, which on closer inspection are all authored by the referee. We would like to hear whether Forum participants have any policies or procedures for reviewers who are clearly manipulating cit… Sample Letters
… If the journal can make a decision about whether misconduct has occured (e.g. on overlap with another paper), and you are satisfied with the authors’ explanation Download .doc (23 kb) If the journal cannot make a decision and the case must be referred to the author's institution to determine whether misconduct has occurred…- News
Upcoming CrossRef webinars
…;llr=hxavzvcab">Registration Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013Time: 8:00 am (San Francisco), 11:00 am (New York), 4:00 pm (London)Moderator: Rachael LammeyRegistration Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 Vacancies on COPE Council
…with the other being a 2–3 day residential meeting incorporating subcommittee meetings and a strategy day. It is expected that all COPE Council members will attend all of these meetings. Annual seminars and workshops are held in a number of locations worldwide and it is hoped that Council Members will participate in at least one of these. Council is divided into subcommittees, and Council…