- Case
Request for removal from author list for reasons of religious belief
We have been contacted by an author of a published article who has requested to be removed from the author list. The author is third in the author list and is neither a lead author nor a corresponding author. The CRediT statement for the article reports that the author’s contribution to the work included investigation, validation, formal analysis and data curation. The author says that t… - Case
Correction, retraction, or expression of concern?
Recently, we received a review report from PubMedCentral for the indexing application of one of our journals. Reviewers pointed out several shortcomings of particular articles below: 1. Discussions that did not thoroughly address limitations, and conclusions that were over-stated and/or not supported by the results. 2. Methods that were not described clearly and in sufficient deta… - News
Creating and implementing research data policies: COPE webinar report
…(Hrynaszkiewicz et al, 4 April 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/122929), an expert working group found commonalities among the publisher’s 2500 journals and consulted with editors, librarians, and funders. It defined a company-wide framework based on four data policy types: (1) Data sharing and data citation encouraged but not required;… - News
Editor to Editor support for Journal Management
…Practices for Journal Websites (INANE collaborators 2016). Another related project is the recently published paper examining 80 nursing journals for adequacy of their author guidelines, conducted by Oermann and colleagues ( - 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Request to withdraw as an author of an accepted but unpublished paper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… - Case
Allegation of reviewer malpractice
…other was general and positive, and recommended publication. It emerged in court that the positive review came from an individual who was working on behalf of the plaintiffs as a paid expert and who “had had a relationship with the study author for more than 10 years. ” The primary question from the overseas colleague is whether the reviewer was nominated by the author or was chosen quite… - Case
Possible dual publication
As editor of journal A I am handling a manuscript by an author and it is likely to be accepted, although this is not yet decided. As a reviewer for journal B, I have since been asked to review a manuscript by the same author that uses similar material and comes to a similar conclusion, but pushes the presentation of the results a little further. My gut feeling is that there is insufficient nove… - Case
Supervisor publishes PhD students work
The PhD supervisor and a co-supervisor published a paper. The paper contained the work of a PhD student; approximately 90% of the paper was from the thesis. The PhD student found out when the paper was electronically pre-published. He contacted the supervisor. The supervisor’s first reaction was “How did you find out”? The supervisor did not want to include the PhD student as an author since he… - Case
Paper B plagiarised paper A: what to do if a journal does not respond?
The author X of a paper published by journal A complained to the editor-in-chief of journal A that his/her paper has been plagiarised by a paper that has been published later by journal B. Moreover, the authors of the paper in journal B allegedly did not respond to letters sent by author X asking for an explanation about the apparent plagiarism. The editor-in-chief of journal A compared… - 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… 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 |- Case
Suspect author
Author A has published approximately 150 original articles since ~1994, with ~100 on one particular topic. Since some of these events were up to 16 years ago, and there are no formal records from then relating to these studies, the only information we have is the memory of the editors of the affected journals in post at the time. According to their accounts, suspicions were aroused over the val… FORUM DISCUSSION TOPIC: comments please
…opinions in its peer review process. However, only 25% were aware of a diversity policy for recruiting members of their peer reviewer pool, and only 13% said there is in-house training to promote diversity and inclusion in peer review [3]. COPE is keen to promote diversity and inclusion in not only peer review but also scholarly publishing in general, by facilitating dialogue and developing…- Case
Unethical private practice
This single author manuscript describes the treatment of 300 women with psychological problems. The women were randomised to either therapy or pharmacological intervention, and this study reports the relative effectiveness of these strategies. At submission, the manuscript did not contain any mention of ethics approval, consent or trial registration. When the author was queried on these… - Case
Editor as author of a paper
A subject editor, who oversaw a manuscript, was invited by the authors to become a co-author after the first review round. After inviting the subject editor to become an author (and adding his name to the author list), the revised version of the paper was submitted to the journal. The authors expected that a different subject editor would handle the paper in the next review round. Howeve… - Case
A case of salami slicing
A reviewer of our journal noticed similarity between a published paper (P1) and a manuscript under review (P2). At the same time, a member of the editorial team noticed similarity between another accepted manuscript for publication (P3) and both paper P1 and manuscript P2. All three papers were submitted by the same authors based on the same trial, reporting three different endpoints measuring… - Case
Two reviewer reports contain a significant amount of verbatim textual overlap
Two of four reviewer reports received by the editor-in-chief of a journal contained a significant amount of verbatim textual overlap. Although of the same native (not English) language, the two reviewers are affiliated to institutions in different countries. The reports were submitted to the journal within 5 days of each other. Both reviewers suggested rejection of the submission. Separa…