- Forum discussion topics
Coordinating multi-journal complaints
…Related resources Dealing with concerns about the integrity of published research COPE discussion document Your comments Anyone (members and non-members) can comment on this discussion. Comments are reviewed and, on approval, added below.… - Case
Rescind a decision post-acceptance prior to publication
…saying people will try to pay us to shut down the paper before it is published. This has added an extra layer of concern to how the situation is handled. We think we should take the following steps: Contact the author to explain the manuscript requires further peer review. Send the manuscript for two further sets of peer review comments. Provide the author with the new set of… - News
Case discussion: self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing
…a published manuscript and asked the authors for an explanation. The editorial board concluded that this case did not represent redundant or salami publication, but did satisfy its criteria for text recycling. A relevant note was added to paper A and journal B was informed. Case Discussion This archived COPE Forum case is categorised under two COPE Core Practices,… - Case
Paper published without permission or acknowledgement from institution
An author affiliated with a research institution R published two papers as a single author, one of them in a journal of publisher A. After publication, publisher A was contacted by the research integrity officer of institution R with a letter of concern. The letter stated that the research institution has conducted a formal investigation and concluded that the author failed to acknowled… - Case
Possible fabricated data: a conspiracy of silence?
This complicated case provoked much discussion. The advice was to reinstate the review but without the three disputed papers, adding a note to say that there is a potential problem with these three papers. It was felt that if the data are fabricated, there was a responsibility on the part of the editor not to publish the data as there might be a significant risk to patients if the trial was… - Forum discussion topics
Ethical considerations around book publishing
…(members and non-members) can comment on this discussion. Comments are reviewed and, on approval, added below.… - Forum discussion topics
Claiming institutional affiliations
…affiliations Khaled Moustafa, Arabixiv Papers A summary of the discussion at the virtual Forum event will be added to this page shortly. Page updated: 12 December 2023 We welcome comments on… - Case
Institution refuses to investigate scientific issues
A publisher was alerted to possible issues with band duplication in an article (more than 10 years old) by a reader. The corresponding author was contacted to resolve the issue. The author was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the bands, and because of the age of the article, the original data were no longer available. The institution was asked to investigate; a summary of the ca… - Case
Simultaneous submission without aiming at duplicate publication
An invite for a review was made by journal A. The first revision was done six months after submission, and the second revision two months later. Three weeks after submission of the second revision, the editor’s decision was minor revision. At this point, the corresponding author, author X, informed the editor of journal A that the authors were reluctant to respond to the comments of the second… - Translated resources
El editor y los revisores solicitan que se cite su trabajo: caso
…se citasen en más de 20 casos y nunca solicitaba citaciones de otros artículos que no fuesen suyos. Los cuatro revisores que frecuentemente participaban en el proceso solicitaban citaciones de artículos del editor mucho más frecuentemente que de artículos en los que el editor no había participado. Estos revisores también solicitaban citaciones de artículos en los que ellos mismos habían… - Case
Authorship issue
…now left the institution). Dr A held the IRB. Dr A had instructed Dr C not to publish until the mother paper was completed. Dr C was asked by the editors to comment on these points, and he responded by saying that: the intellectual contribution from Drs A and B was minimal; he (Dr C) had added the relevant addendum to the IRB myself; Drs A and B had threatened to ruin his career if he did… - Case
Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
…a policy for handling requests to exclude individuals from the journal’s editorial process. The following has been added to the journal’s editorial policy: “We reserve the right to send manuscripts to the reviewers of our choice”. The editor considers the case closed. Related resource Spanish version: - News
Artificial intelligence: Lightning talk summary
…The checks carried out by AI are done at various stages: as part of initial verifications, as peer review is initiated, and as it continues. Sometimes flags are raised late in the process, for example, if new data have been added to the training bank after the article went into the process. Deciding when to run checks is a complicated process, especially when a manuscript is also changing as it… - Case
Service evaluation as research in a controversial area of medicine
…suggested the editor may wish to consult the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines on how to publish quality improvement studies, which can be found on the Equator Network website (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/squire/).… - News
Welcome new COPE members April-June 2019
Welcome to our new members who have joined COPE between April and June 2019. The new members have been assessed against criteria outlined in the Principles of Transparency and signing up to COPE shows that they intend to follow the highest standards of publication ethics and to apply COPE principles of publication ethics outlined in the - Forum discussion topics
Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills”
…is not necessarily a sign of a paper mill submission but if there are other red flags, it can be useful. Some additional features have been added. The original features for the tool were to protect against reviewer fraud and a report would only be issued after peer review. A new setting (low, medium, high) can raise an alert if there is a high rate of submission from the same device. Would it be… - News
In the news: February Digest
…scores were given awards by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher education, sparking outrage by many who claimed that those who abused the system were awarded.https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/Indonesias-scientists-voice-concerns-countrys/96/web/2018… - News
Case discussion: critiques after publication
…can be contacted and an expression of concern added in the interim. If the author remains uncooperative, the editor is bound to retract the paper for the sake of not misleading readers, researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders. The retraction notice should transparently explain what post-publication review procedures were followed and what happened. As an additional… - News
In the news: November 2020
…tepid reviews. Here is a link to the Lancet’s commentary on this topic, outlining their plans. The database of over 18,000 retracted papers and conference abstracts from Retraction Watch was analysed. - News
In the news: June 2021
…to recommendations very well. They concluded that strategies are needed to improve the efficiency, accuracy and transparency of processes for resolving concerns about publication integrity. Retraction Watch interviewed the…