- 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… - Case
Unauthorised use of data
A multicentre study conducted with a working group involving 38 centres was published in our journal. Author A was a member of one of the centres and was listed as the 13th author in the article. Another colleague (author B) who is not a coauthor and who works in the same department as author A, contacted our journal and claimed that the data from the centre used by author A in the study were… - Case
Self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing
Journal A accepted a manuscript with six authors in June 2017, which was published in January 2018. Several months later, the editors of journal A found that journal B had published paper B, which shared striking similarities to paper A. Journal B accepted paper B in November 2017 and published it in February 2018. The first author of paper B was different but the remaining four authors were fr… - Event
COPE Lightning Talk: AI
30 January 2024, 13:00-14:00 GMT / UTC COPE members only New for 2024 COPE introduces Lightning Talks! We've created these to increase awareness and confidence in specific topics. Each talk will begin with a short introduction from experts, and then open up to discussion and questions from the audience. Join us to learn more, let us know your thoughts… - News
Letter from the COPE co-Chairs: July 2018
…3px; margin-right: 3px; float: left;" /> Disclosure: CG works for Wiley, where he is Director, Research Integrity and Publishing EthicsPicture credit: CC0 Creative Commons from - 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… FORUM DISCUSSION TOPIC: comments please
…="_blank">https://peerj.com/about/preprints/policies-and-procedures/#retraction-policy Preprints.org https://www.preprints.org/instructions_for_authors#withdrawal This will be discussed at the start of the next COPE Forum on Monday 24 July 2017. Please do leave any comments below, whether or not you are planning on joining the meeting Comments are reviewed and, on approval, added…- Case
Boundaries of duplicate submission
A paper was submitted to journal A. The reviewers were enthusiastic but raised substantive concerns. The editorial decision was 'reject with resubmission allowed', providing the authors the opportunity to submit a revision if they feel all concerns can be addressed. The authors elected to submit substantially the same report to journal B. The outcome was essentially the same; the paper was reje… - Case
Same cohort - same blood samples - multiple tests
This is a hypothetical situation based on a real-life experience. A set of authors recruited the same patient cohort, collected data with two questionnaires, took one blood sample, but tests were done by two research students for two pathogens, and the results were presented separately in two theses. Subsequently, they sent different papers to two journals. No plagiarism has been identif… - News
In the news: December 2018 Digest
…lots of discussion. A journal for anonymous ‘controversial’ ideas will only fan the flamesPseudonyms to protect authors of controversial articles - Case
Suspicion of breach of proper peer reviewer behaviour
An author submitted a paper for peer review with journal X on a topic that refers to a very recently published paper (ie, highly timely). The peer review was rather protracted because of long response times, reviewer substitution and the need to re-review the manuscript after a major revision. Just before the second decision was rendered, the author contacted the editor-in-chief with a s… - Case
Are copyrighted conference audiotapes considered "prior publication"?
An editor received a query from an author: “Your guidelines are clear that presenting data at a society meeting does not preclude publication. But what if the society records the presentation, retains copyright of that recording, and posts it online? Is asking presenters to turn over copyright of a recording of data presented at a prepublication stage and disseminating the recording as they see… - News
In the news: December 2020
…href="http://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/science/diversity-science-journals.html" target="_blank">diversity in scientific publishing. During 2020, increasing calls for diversity among authors, editorial boards, and journal leadership have gained momentum. Wu reports that few of the publishers she contacted for her story collected demographic data on authors and that two that did so, cautioned that the data were unreliable due to low response rate by authors.… - Case
Author non-disclosure by editor in chief
Please note, this case is being submitted by the Publishing Director of the journal based on the advice of a senior COPE member because it relates to the conduct of the editor in chief of the journal. The editor in chief of the journal is aware that the case is being submitted. A letter of complaint was submitted in November 2009 relating to an editorial published in one of our journals,… - Case
Temporary exception to double anonymised review policy
The journal conducts double-anonymous reviews of all manuscripts submitted. As part of the decision process, reviewers routinely receive a copy of the decision letter, which includes reviewers’ comments. In the transition to a new editorial staff, a change to the email template inadvertently meant that the full letter was sent out, including the corresponding author’s name. Before this was disc… - Case
Personal remarks within a post-publication literature forum
We publish an online service in which faculty members (well reputed clinicians and researchers) select, rate and evaluate influential articles of their choice. Members of the faculty can submit “dissents” to evaluations: dissents are to the fact that an article is selected, as opposed to any specific faculty member’s evaluation. The original faculty members who wrote the evaluation… - Case
Findings of a published trial called into question by a subsequent audit of trial conduct
In 2008, our journal published a phase 2 randomised controlled trial of a new medicine. In 2011, the regulatory authority in the country where the study was performed decided to undertake routine monitoring of completed studies and this trial was selected for random inspection. The author informed the journal of the inspection and provided a translation of the report (independently verified as… - Case
Online posting of confidential draft by peer reviewer
Shortly before publication, I received an email from the authors of a systematic review telling me that a version of the paper as first submitted to the journal for peer review had appeared on the website of a campaign group based in the USA. It was clear that the version of the document posted on the website was the same as the version supplied to the journal's peer reviewers. Further investig… - Case
Authorship dispute involving a commercial institution
A paper was published in a journal. After publication, an associate editor of the journal said that they and other colleagues should have been authors on the paper. They cited a patent they helped write that overlapped with the article as proof that they should be authors on the paper. The authors of the paper refuse to add the associate editor and colleagues as authors. Unfortuna… - News
Diversity, equity, inclusivity and accessibility: COPE commentary
…within the wider publishing community. In March 2022 we issued a position statement which stated that COPE is committed to creating an inclusive and equitable culture, where all voices are welcomed and heard, and difference is celebrated. Through our words and actions, we intend to work for…