- Case
Advice regarding a weird type of content and its authorship
Our company publishes clinical pathways. They were initially authored by local experts, but have since been retrofitted with evidence, if possible. This was done by expert “evidologists”, not clinical experts; they were acknowledged solely by their company name (it was “out-sourced”). If the evidence did not fit, the pathway was discarded. We undertake to review all of the pathways… - Case
Duplicate publication in multicentre consortia
Two closely related journals received a series of manuscripts each based on descriptions of a complex medical procedure by multicentre consortia. At least three separate consortia submitted three separate papers. Each consortium included centres which were shared between the three groups and likely have the same patients/procedures represented in different reports. For example: … - Case
Editor as author
A publisher was contacted by an editor-in-chief of one of their journals. The editor-in-chief wanted to submit an article written by themselves and one of the journal editorial board members. The article related to treatment provided by the editor to a patient, who was also the coauthor of the paper. The publisher was concerned about the ethical issues that would need to be addre… - Case
An unpublished PhD thesis included in an institutional library is submitted to an academic journal
A manuscript was submitted to Journal A. A routine CrossCheck report revealed a 70% match to the author's PhD thesis. The journal recommended that the author expand the article with new content. The author raised an objection, arguing that the PhD thesis is not published in a journal, but is only included in the institutional library. The journal noted that related issues had been… - Event
COPE webinar: Standards in authorship
…-contributors.html Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration and credit http://openscholar.mit.edu/sites/default/files/dept/files/lpub28-2_151-155.pdf Transparency in Authors' Contributions and Responsibilities to Promote Integrity in Scientific Publication Terms and conditions
…from the receipt of invoice. Where any subscription payable by the member to COPE is not paid, your membership shall be deemed to have lapsed. The member will be served with notice allowing the member 28 days from the date of the last reminder to make the necessary payment (the 'grace period'). During the grace period, the member will remain a full member of…- Case
No ethics committee approval of a study
Our journal received a manuscript describing a comparison of two different techniques for patients in the intensive care unit. There was no information on ethics committee approval and so we asked the authors if approval was obtained. They replied that they had not applied for ethics committee approval “as it was a clinical comparison of two existing methods, none of them experimental. All pati… - Case
Retraction request after university investigation found no evidence of fraud
Dr X claimed to have found fabrication and falsification of data in an article submitted for publication by Dr Y. Dr Y’s university investigated and found no evidence of fraud but a genuine error in the figure. Dr X provided more information and a further investigation was initiated. It again dismissed the complaint as unfounded. The paper was then published. Dr X is now asking the journal for… - News
Letter from the COPE Chair: May 2021
…in 2019, is being updated to reflect authorship issues in a broad range of subject disciplines, particularly the arts, humanities and the social sciences. More information on its release is coming soon. Coming up on 28 May, our webinar for COPE members is around diversity, equity and inclusion. With COPE… - Case
Inadvertent discovery of salami submission
The journal submitting this case to COPE sent a paper [paper 1] to a reviewer who wrote this in the review: “…That apart, this manuscript seems to be another report of the already published **** trial, looking at the data from a slightly different angle. I am not convinced, however, that the data is worthy of so many submissions.” And, in a separate email to the… - Case
Request to withdraw as an author of an accepted but unpublished paper
Last March we accepted a paper written by a post-doctoral fellow (PD) and an assistant professor (AP). The work was done by PD in AP's laboratory; PD has now moved on (to another country, in fact). Soon after the manuscript was sent to production, AP sent an email asking to delay production of the manuscript because AP was worried that there may be an ‘error’ in the manuscript that might requir… - News
In the news: March 2018 Digest
…height: 28px; margin-top: 3px; margin-bottom: 3px; float: right;" />A US court has required a publisher to breach its confidentiality policy and identify an article's anonymous peer reviewers.http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/unusual… 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- News
New: Chinese resources
…="https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidlines_for_PeerReviewers_Chinese_Web.pdf">Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers Discussion document: What constitutes authorship? Flowcharts: Complete set of flowcharts - News
In the news: August 2021
…journals, and other organisations represents a commitment to creating a more inclusive culture in STEM fields and STEM publishing in particular. The participating national laboratories will facilitate requests for name changes for any reason, including religious, marital, or… - 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… FORUM DISCUSSION TOPIC: Issues related to papers submitted to “discussion” journals
…discussion section of the journal Within 2-8 weeks, the paper is up online with a DOI, ready for the open peer review process Two referees are invited to post their reviews online Anyone else can comment on the paper whilst it is going through review A decision is made on the paper based on the review comments, with the normal “major,” “minor,” “accept” and “reject”…- News
Predatory behaviour in publication ethics
…="https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/28/predatory-publishing-rational-response-poorly-governed-academic-incentives/">colluding in poor practice by publishing in predatory journals). Scholarship in this area tends to focus on the - 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.