Filter by content type

Filter by topic

Search results for '狗屁加拿大28都是假的【乐鱼体育:AK66.CC】l5y1t4y-2022年5月19日11时3分35秒'

Showing 401–420 of 446 results
  • Case

    Self-plagiarism of review article

    A reader flagged up that a review article originally published in a journal X in April 2003 had subsequently appeared with a few minor additions and deletions in journal Y (our journal) in July 2004 and then in journal Z (of which the author is an editor) in September 2006. The authors on the paper are all from the same institute although with some minor differences between the publications: jo…
  • News

    Letter from COPE: June 2020

    …together support and guidance that has been brought to our attention during the crisis. It’s worth repeating COPE Chair Deborah Poff's statement in our April
  • Case

    Simultaneous publication

    About a month after our journal (Journal A) published a paper (Paper X), the journal received emails from readers that Paper X was very similar to a paper (Paper Y) that had just been published by another journal (Journal B). Some of these emails were sent to both journal offices. Paper X was submitted to Journal A a few days before Paper Y was submitted to Journal B and Paper X wa…
  • Case

    Authorship issue related to misleading action of one author

    Our journal received a manuscript which was a report of an evaluation and enhancement of an online clinical decision support system (CDS) for a specific population at risk of a disease. The online CDS had been developed by a national agency with a mission to support health promotion and disease prevention activities. Evaluation of the CDS was supported through contracts and sub-contracts. The f…
  • News

    Data and reproducibility: The role of research institutions

    …href="" target="_blank">FAIR Data Principles -- making research data “Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable”, it falls on funders, publishers, researchers and their institutions to establish practices and policies for the appropriate handling of research data. Research institutions -- as the home of significant research data production and management -- have a particularly critical role…
  • Event

    COPE Seminar 2021

    …Members only) Ethical practice in research data publication - challenges, lessons and opportunities FORCE11 Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group, in collaboration with COPE, is developing guidelines and resources to support journal editors, data repositories, and institutions in the handling of ethics cases related to research data. The resources…
  • Common ethical and editorial dilemmas of author misconduct: how should we respond?

    …"Evidence of misconduct" "Probably no misconduct" Not applicable 1997 16 11 0 5 1998 33 30 2 1 1999 27 20 3 4 2000 32 26 6 0…
  • News

    In the news: May 2021

    …target="_blank">piece describes CRediT in more detail including details of the new ORCID implementation. Preprints The demand for rapid circulation of information during the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way research, especially medical research, is being shared, with a massive increase in the use of preprint servers, with their associated advantages and disadvantages.  This has highlighted the…
  • Forum discussion topics

    Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills”

    …href="">Paper mills research report, COPE & STM, 2022 Systematic manipulation of the publication process, COPE guidance updated 2022 Potential “paper mills” and what to do about them – a publisher’s…
  • Case

    Data fabrication, lack of ethical approval, withdrawal of paper and publication in another journal

    This query refers to a clinical trial comparing two forms of treatment which has since been published in another journal. I originally received this manuscript in 2009. One of the referees alerted me to the fact that the data looked strange. Furthermore, the test and controls groups were perfectly distributed, which is almost impossible. Along with the usual requests for modifications, I…
  • Case

    What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction versus correction?

    A short research article described a new method and tested the method, showing proof-of-concept that the method worked; the idea for the method is presented as the authors’ own. On publication, the paper receives an overwhelmingly positive response from the community. Shortly after publication, the editorial team is contacted by a PhD student and their supervisor who had published the id…
  • Case

    Unethical withdrawal of a paper

    …future and wanted to verify with them that his intended action—a ban for double submission—was suitable. On returning from meeting with the publishers, Editor A discovered that the paper had never been withdrawn from consideration and the review process was now complete (entire review process 28 days). The reviewer comments warranted rejection. Editor A sent a rejection letter to Authors A and…
  • Seminars and webinars

    Seminar 2021: Trustworthy AI for the future of publishing (Members only)

    This page is for COPE Members only until April 2022. The new COPE Discussion document “Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making”, was launched at the COPE webinar, discussing ethics issues relating to the application of artificial…
  • News

    Post-publication conflicts of interest

    …Trevor Lane on behalf of the COPE Education Subcommittee Related resources Editorial conflicts of interest COPE Forum discussion 2022
  • COPE Privacy Policy

    …aspect related to the information detailed in this Privacy Information Notice, please send an email to the COPE Web Manager, Dom Mitchell: [email protected]     11) OTHER INFORMATION WE COLLECT ON THIS SITE 11.a Google Analytics Google Analytics (GA)…
  • Case

    Mislabelling/duplicate images

    We were contacted by a reader who told us that he had spotted a number of cases of image duplication and mislabelling of fluorescent tags that had occurred over the past 4 years. These involved two papers published in our journal, and two other papers published in two different journals. The two papers in our journal were both reviews, and the one that had the most occurrences involved a poster…
  • Case

    Inappropriate authorship on students paper

    A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study which was a final year student's project was submitted as an original article to our journal on 30 April 2011. On initial review it was obvious that it was conducted by students and written by them, but the list of authors had the supervisor as the first author, followed by 13 students. The supervisor, who was also the corresponding author, wa…
  • Case

    Meta-analysis: submission of unreliable findings

    A meta-analysis was conducted of about 1000 patients included in a number of small trials of a drug for emergency management administered by route X compared with route Y. The report concluded that administration by route X improves short term survival. Chronology  The paper was submitted to our journal in September 2011 and after peer review was return…
  • Translated resources

    El autor solicita que ciertos expertos no participen en el proceso editorial: caso

    …Existe el peligro de que esto envalentone más aún al autor si los revisores que sugirió finalmente están involucrados en el proceso de revisión. Además, los editores tienen el deber de proteger a los revisores. Sejuimiento Los editores decidieron acceder a la solicitud del autor. El manuscrito se rechazó basándose en los informes de dos revisores por pares y en la opinión de 11
  • News

    Guest article: Avoiding predatory publishers

    …because all the translations have been provided by volunteer researchers and librarians. Think.Check.Submit. exists because of the support of nine industry organizations