- Case
The study that may or may not already have been published
A study purported to have been stimulated by a systematic review that had already been published in the journal. The new study included 15 patients who had been treated in one arm of a study and 15 who had been treated in another arm. The peer reviewers noticed that the original systematic review included 31 patients from the same authors. The editor contacted the authors asking them to make… - Case
Unethical withdrawal after acceptance to maximize the 'impact factor'?
We are a publisher with a portfolio of about 25 journals, with journal X being the flagship journal. Journal X has a high impact factor. We also publish a range of other, newer journals, some of which are ranked highly but most have no impact factor. An author submitted a manuscript to journal Y where it underwent peer review and was accepted after revisions. After acceptance, the… - Case
An appropriate response to concerns of research validity
A paper describing a novel technique was submitted. Three out of four external reviewers felt that the results could not be true. The manufacturers of the tool used in the technique provided evidence to support the reviewers’ claims that the results were not feasible. The editor wrote to the authors asking them to explain their results. The authors replied saying that they were unable… - News
In the news: March 2021
…Hospital Research Institute checklist to be from predatory publishers. Less than half referenced some area of dentistry. Peer review In an analysis of two medical journals which use an open peer review process, - Case
Homeoprophylactic treatment of a zoonotic disease
…(over 2 million people). This was done in parallel to the country’s conventional vaccination and surveillance programme. The authors claim that this intervention significantly reduced the incidence of the disease in the treated provinces compared with the non-treated provinces. We asked the authors to provide more information on how they had addressed the ethical aspects of this study and to… - Case
Dispute between two authors
A manuscript was submitted by author A to our journal. The content of the paper was controversial. We sent this manuscript for peer review by two clinical reviewers. We wrote back to author A requesting major revisions to address the concerns and issues raised by the reviewers. A revised paper was submitted and accepted for publication. Because the article was controversial,… - News
Guest article: Inclusion in Scholarly Practice
…that we better understand how a very different spectrum of disciplines is confronting some new challenges—and some of the same, old challenges newly revealed. In so many aspects of our world we need to be thinking with the very tools that AHSS puts at our disposal, and in ways that will benefit our colleagues in STEM fields as well. Inclusion is not only about the who of our inquiry… - Case
Author requests permission to publish review comments
…subject. The author appealed the decision and the decision was upheld, but the author was informed that a different critique of the published paper which sufficiently advances the debate and moves the topic forward in a constructive manner could be considered again. The author informed us that they intended to make the version of the manuscript as submitted publicly available online along with the… - News
Audio versions of December Forum cases now online
You can now listen to the cases presented at the December COPE Forums in audio. Listen to the full discussion and hear how the Forum members debated the issue and the conclusions they arrived at. The December cases start from Case Number 11-23 (Possible… - Discussion documents
Predatory publishing
The COPE predatory publishing discussion document introduces issues, and analyses potential solutions, around predatory publications. COPE welcomes comments which add to this ongoing debate. Common features of the phenomenon include deception and lack of quality controls, and there are a range of warning signs to look for when assessing a journal. Problems for authors, readers, and… - Case
Competing interest
…agent was advised that this statement could not be added because the author had not disclosed it. The agent insisted, so the journal contacted the author. The author asked: “Does the final article have these words or something that states the article was in part supported by [X]?” A copy of the agent’s wording and the competing interest statement from the published article were sent to the author, who… - Case
Correction, retraction, or expression of concern?
…assessed at two levels: the journal level, and the articles. At a journal level, the editors should engage in a thorough review of their peer review and editorial processes to identify where these issues arose and establish how they can be prevented in future. This may require updating of policies and processes, and/or team training if the review suggests that there have been systematic lapses. At… - Event
Project Management for Publishing
… This course provides those managing projects as well as those working on them with a template and many supporting tools that can be applied to all projects, large or small, to help ensure successful outcomes. It has a strong emphasis on getting things right at the outset because this is where most problems with projects arise. The programme is highly practical and includes break-out… - Forum discussion topics
COPE Forum 12 February 2016: Data sharing
…Australia, for example) and the editors do not have a policy of peer review of the data prior to acceptance of the paper, how will requiring data sharing actually improve the integrity of the research? Other questions include how long should data remain available, who should manage the availability and sharing of the data, and how much will these requirements cost? In addition, there is a need to ensure… - News
A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors 2011
The short guide to ethical editing was updated in 2019. COPE Council member, Margaret Rees, has written a guide to ethical editing for new editors. Becoming an editor of a journal is an exciting but daunting task especially if you are working alone without day to day contact with… - Case
Letter to the editor and retraction notice
A Letter to the Editor was submitted to Journal A – this Letter contained major criticisms of a paper previously published in Journal A, in particular of the statistical analysis underpinning the conclusions and the study design, and called for its retraction. The Editor sent the Letter out for peer review and some revisions were made by the authors. Based on both the content of the Letter and… - Event
Publication Integrity Week 2023
…easier and quicker to resolve. Following the panel discussion the conversation opened to questions from attendees. Tuesday 3 October: PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT AND FRAUD DAY For the first time we dedicated a day of our seminar programme to the threat presented by misconduct and fraud and how we can work together to combat these issues.