COPE Forum
…peer review, editing of reviewer comments Predatory publishing Ethical considerations around book publishing- Case
Exposing citation manipulation and fraud in the community
A publisher has identified a ring of three individuals who acted as guest editors for three special issues. These individuals used nine fake accounts to peer review manuscripts. For some manuscripts, the fake identities were used alongside legitimate reviewers, while in other cases they were used exclusively. The publisher has also identified several submissions to those special issues where th… - Case
Data availability for vulnerable populations
A paper on a vulnerable population was published in a journal. The journal followed their usual procedures for processing papers on vulnerable populations, by requesting and reviewing further information on the ethics approval and consent procedures of the study (e.g.: recruitment procedures; blank version of the consent document participants read and signed; the study protocol that was approve… - Case
Retraction request after university investigation found no evidence of fraud
COPE Council judged in 2022 that ‘A journal has the right to retract an article, even when an institutional investigation does not find misconduct. The editor is responsible for the ethical standards of their journal, and if the editor has independent evidence that… Membership: universities and research institutes
COPE announced the launch of membership for selected universities and research institutes in May 2022. An initial group of universities and research institutes have joined as members and will help ensure that the dedicated resources provide the appropriate support and guidance that universities and research institutes need: Aston University |- Flowcharts
Systematic manipulation of the publication process
…process COPE guidance 2023 Paper mills research report COPE & STM, 2022 How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process COPE infographic - Case
A case of scientific misconduct?
…authors wrote back to us, cc'ing the heads of their two research ethics committees, to say that indeed, the manuscript did not match the two different protocols they sent us. They explained that there was a fault in the manuscript and not in the work carried out. They explained that the paper they sent us did not describe a single study but rather parts of 4 different approved studies taking place over… - News
Where next in peer review? Part 2: COPE commentary
…held its first Forum on AI in November 2019, when the topic was AI in decision making. At that stage it was noted that technology was starting to bring in ‘data-driven solutions’, and that AI could potentially provide guidance to humans or automate a range of… - Case
Serial plagiarism by an experienced author
…or mean to do it and (c) he was very sorry and would not do it again. Dr J had made six other submissions to our journal, all of which had been rejected on the grounds of quality. iThenticate checks on these revealed similarity indexes between 66% and 77%. Typically up to three sources had been plagiarized to contribute up to 63% of the material. A search using Google Scholar identified that… - News
Creating and implementing research data policies: COPE webinar report
…data sharing (62%), data citation (40%), or peer review of data (38%). If you have any suggestions for future guidance from COPE with respect to data… - News
In the news: February Digest
…-babies-show-need-for-more-specific-rules/ Plan S A review of the current (as of Jan 3,2019) world status on endorsement of Plan S, documents that as of now, <4% of global research articles published in 2017 were payed for by the first 15 funders to back Plan S. However, as more funders join, the more pressure there will be to flip from paywall subscription model to an open access model. China now, the country that contributes… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2022: Managing paper mills
…Practical steps for managing paper mills September 2022 During Peer Review Week COPE hosted a webinar for journal editors and publishers on the practical steps to take in managing paper mills. Speakers described their experience of managing paper mills affecting their journals, with practical tips on how to manage systematic… - News
Case Discussion: Possible plagiarism
…sloppiness. The practice of citing with either quoting or paraphrasing is also the etiquette expected when copyright permission is not required, including use of material that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence and material in the public domain (CC 0). The need for sound infrastructure and clear policies and processes in the editorial office is covered in 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… - News
Letter from the COPE Chair: January 2020
…scholarly work in medical journals” Also, for our North American colleagues, we want to let you know that this year’s North American seminar will be held in Columbus, Ohio, 15 June 2020. Mark your calendars. Details will be forthcoming soon. It is going to be an exciting first year of the new decade and we look forward to working with you to make it a great year for publication ethics. Best… - Case
Plagiarism in a case report
I received a phone call from the first Author (A) of a case report published in our journal in 2005, who informed us that he had received a letter from an Author (B) of a research letter which had been published in another journal in 2000, stating that 12–15 sentences from the research letter had been copied in the case report. Having compared the papers, about… - Case
Inadequate reporting of a trial, despite earlier rejection from a different journal
We have been contacted by a reviewer after he spotted a paper he had reviewed for us (journal 1) now published in a second journal (journal 2). Both journals are members of COPE. The reviewer had advised we reject the paper when it was sent to him to review in September 2008. This was based on his assessment of the paper and also the supplementary material he was sent by us: protocol, CONSORT s… - Case
Change in author’s name after publication
…publications are traced back to this unique identifier. On a show of hands, the majority (15) of the Forum said they would not change the name and 10 said they would.… - Case
Author disagreement blocks submission
A paper was submitted to a medical journal reporting original research on human subjects. Two corresponding authors, author A (first in authors’ list) and author B (last in the list) were listed. The paper was sent to external referees but while it was under review, the editor received an email from author A stating that s/he had not read the paper, was not aware of the submission and did not a… - Case
Revoked parental consent
Our journal publishes case reports describing the evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of unusual cases. Parents must provide written informed consent prior to manuscript submission. No cases are presented with unique identifiers and each is anonymised as much as possible. A manuscript was submitted with written consent that was accepted for publication and assigned to an issue. Just befo…