- News
Research Integrity, Sixth Report of Session 2017-19 from the House of Commons
Following a 10 month inquiry, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has issued recommendations to strengthen requirements and improve compliance with the existing 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity [full report]. Compliance with new and existing standards… - News
Letter from the COPE Chair: March 2021
…the author worked together. COPE has established a working group to develop guidance on this important topic of author name changes. The group is now shaping guidance for journals and publishers that we will share with you in the coming months. May 10 is the date of our next webinar, on… - Case
Community leaders’ consent as a proxy for individual consent
A study was submitted that reported the prevalence of an intestinal infection in a tribal community. The authors did not obtain informed individual consent for stool collection from the study participants; instead they obtained consent from the leaders of each village. The study protocol was approved by the national IRB, but the protocol made no specific mention of stool collection—it referred… - 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
Retract, correct, or both?
Like many journals, we do not collect actual signatures of each co-author, asking the corresponding author to declare on a form that, among other things, he/she has the authority to submit on behalf of the others A paper was published in our journal in April 2010. Shortly afterwards, we were contacted by one of the authors saying that he and his colleagues had been unaware of the existen… - Case
Lack of acknowledgement of contributor
Our case relates to a paper (by author’s A and B) that was retracted because of lack of acknowledgement of the contribution of another author (C). The retraction statement noted: “While the A/B paper is largely the work of A and B, it includes some sentences and ideas that previously appeared in an unpublished paper and/or Power Point presentation only with A and C listed as authors. We regret… - Case
Falsified references
An article was submitted to my journal and was sent for peer review. An editorial board member realised that a number of the references were incorrect: publication dates had been changed to make them more current. The author was contacted by email and telephone who said he/she had a number of students working for him (who were not listed as authors or in the acknowledgment) and they must… - 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
Authorship dispute
A manuscript was published in journal X, submitted by several co-authors, including one of the editors in chief of journal X, Dr A (the article was handled by another editor in chief at the journal). Another researcher, Dr B, has claimed that this article should be withdrawn because it contains unauthorized data from him (Dr B). A few years previously, Drs A and B worked and published jo… - Case
Should a journal disclose peer reviewer names?
…a subpoena, the journal could take the position that it will comply with this demand or it can file a motion to oppose the subpoena. There is some precedent for courts upholding a journal's right to preserve the confidentiality of its peer reviewer process (see an example here). If the journal has a policy of referee… - News
Announcement of COPE Council elections
…Administrator, Linda Gough to whom applications and nominations can be emailed. The closing date for applications is 10 JUNE 2011. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ COPE council member: role description Purpose of role … - Forum discussion topics
Artificial intelligence (AI) and fake papers
March 2023 Watch the introduction to "AI and fake papers" with Dr Sarah Elaine Eaton and Marie Soulière. - Forum discussion topics
Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills”
…helped us considerably and the editor in chief is not overwhelmed by the situation. How can comparisons be done systematically across different articles in different journals? How does it differ from authorship by medical communication company (ie, ghost authorship)? If a submission looks suspicious, it may be worth looking into the metadata. Larger journals might notice 10… Submitting a guest editorial or opinion piece to COPE
…any loss or damage caused or occasioned as a result of the publication of a guest editorial or opinion article. Publication history This policy will be reviewed and updated at the discretion of the editors. Published: 25 January 2022 Updated: 20 June 2023…- News
Guest article: Detecting integrity issues
…href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/systematic-manipulation-publication-process">Systematic manipulation of the publication process, COPE guidance 2022 The evolving relationship between universities and scholarly publishers, COPE Seminar Keynote address 2021… - Case
Possible peer review manipulation
A journal received a complaint by one of the co-authors of an article submitted by a research team, stating that one of the reviewers suggested by the corresponding author sent an email to corresponding author asking them to tell them what comments they should insert in their review. In response, the corresponding author asked the co-authors to propose comments to be sent to the reviewer. One o… 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
In the news: May 2018 Digest
…African researchhttps://blog.aasopenresearch.org/2018/04/18/putting-african-researchers-at-the-centre-of-the-publication-process/ - Case
Handling self-admissions of fraud
…results. The Forum questioned why it has taken the corresponding author 10 years to contact the journal, as it would seem to be professional suicide. The Japanese government has recently issued guidelines to institutions to clean up their act following the Japanese stem cell scandal—could this be a factor? The Forum acknowledged that the journal has handled this correctly by taking the… - News
Letter from the COPE Chair: March 2020
…resources, including discussion documents, flowcharts, guidelines, and case studies under 10 distinct types of publications ethics issues. It allows you to find all the relevant material on an issue (eg, authorship and contributorship). Our case discussion this month is case 19-11: Withdrawal of…